:patriot: Greetings.

I just want to introduce myself as being the next Governor of the State of Maryland.

Campaign website is HERE (http://www.VoteJP.Webs.com).

The registration with the State Board of Elections was done on Tuesday.

My name is James P. Cusick Sr., but I will be listed on the Democratic Party election ballot as just "J.P. Cusick", as I see that having a better ring to it.

Democrats rock! :larry:

OH GOOD LORD!!! :roflmao:

OH GOOD LORD!!! :roflmao:
:yeahthat::roflmao::killingme

I guess ambition is the last refuge of failure. :lmao:

Oh boy, here we go again!!! :killingme:roflmao::killingme:roflmao::killingme:roflmao::killingme:roflmao:

:patriot: Greetings.

I just want to introduce myself as being the next Governor of the State of Maryland.

Campaign website is HERE (http://www.VoteJP.Webs.com).

The registration with the State Board of Elections was done on Tuesday.

My name is James P. Cusick Sr., but I will be listed on the Democratic Party election ballot as just "J.P. Cusick", as I see that having a better ring to it.

Democrats rock! :larry:
I nominate Andy Marquis to be your pick for Lt. Gov. :yay:

*standing with mic*

So, J.P. Tell us just exactly what recommendations you'd make to reform and improve the child support system and its vast inequities.

:tap:

:cds:.....:doh:.....:faint:

Oh no here we go again....

Would someone please show this azz#### the way out. :buttkick:

Would someone please show this azz#### the way out. :buttkick:

Oh come on Vince. Just think of all the upcoming delusional comedy we get to look forward to! :roflmao:

:patriot: Greetings.

I just want to introduce myself as being the local fruitcake. My name is James P. Cusick Sr., but I will be listed on the Democratic Party election ballot as just "Chief Fruitcake", as I see that having a better ring to it.

Democrats will vote for anybody! :larry:I love this guy!

Movin on up to the deluxe elected office in the skyyyyyyyyyy

Would someone please show this azz#### the way out. :buttkick:

Maybe he's searching for a first lady for the office.

*standing with mic*

So, J.P. Tell us just exactly what recommendations you'd make to reform and improve the child support system and its vast inequities.

:tap:

:patriot: Hi mA, and I just love questions.

The very first and foremost thing to do to improve the child support system would be to order a full scale pardon and immediate release of all parents in any jail for child support.

That is simply a matter of priorities. :whistle:

:patriot: Hi mA, and I just love questions.

The very first and foremost thing to do to improve the child support system would be to order a full scale pardon and immediate release of all parents in any jail for child support.

That is simply a matter of priorities. :whistle:

Let the games begin! :jerry:

JP, I don't mean to disrespect you as the future Governor of MD, but when they found the homeless guy in the flattops dead, we were all hoping it was you.

:patriot: Hi mA, and I just love questions.

The very first and foremost thing to do to improve the child support system would be to order a full scale pardon and immediate release of all parents in any jail for child support.

That is simply a matter of priorities. :whistle:So I guess that means you don't care about the kids or their mothers. And it probably gets you released from jail also.

:patriot: Hi mA, and I just love questions.

The very first and foremost thing to do to improve the child support system would be to order a full scale pardon and immediate release of all parents in any jail for child support.

That is simply a matter of priorities. :whistle:


How would a pardon and release improve the current child support system?

How would a pardon and release improve the current child support system?He has to get himself released from jail before he can assume duties as governor.

JP, I don't mean to disrespect you as the future Governor of MD, but when they found the homeless guy in the flattops dead, we were all hoping it was you.


Oh come on now.. Isn't that a little harsh.. Wishing someone dead....:coffee:

Oh come on now.. Isn't that a little harsh.. Wishing someone dead....:coffee:

I didn't wish him dead, they found the person dead already. It was just wishful thinking that it was him and not some innocent homeless person.

Good luck JPC :yay:

JP, can I suggest paying for a web site. Your free one popped up with an add by Google saying McDonnel for Governor. :lmao:

So a candidate presents himself here and its someone no one ever heard of before. He posts a link to his campaign site, so I decide to at least take a look and see what he has to offer.

"The one and the most important platform position by JP Cusick is to reform the Child Support system."

The ONE platform position...out of all the problems in this state...this is the ONE platform position.

Here's a clue "Mr. Next Governor of Maryland": Child Support System reform is number 999 out of 1000.

Besides, any candidate that puts a link to a Michael Jackson YouTube video (that has been removed) on his official website can only be expected to be labeled the same way: Wacko.

How would a pardon and release improve the current child support system?
:coffee: That is because we now have innocent parents in jail for child support when the parents have done nothing wrong and so releasing them immediately is the decent and just thing to do.

And every one of the parents (mothers and fathers) are all innocent, while the child support laws are all severely corrupt.

So that would be the foremost improvement that I could make first. :patriot:

So a candidate presents himself here and its someone no one ever heard of before. He posts a link to his campaign site, so I decide to at least take a look and see what he has to offer.

"The one and the most important platform position by JP Cusick is to reform the Child Support system."

The ONE platform position...out of all the problems in this state...this is the ONE platform position.

Here's a clue "Mr. Next Governor of Maryland": Child Support System reform is number 999 out of 1000.

Besides, any candidate that puts a link to a Michael Jackson YouTube video (that has been removed) on his official website can only be expected to be labeled the same way: Wacko.

You're fairly new to this site huh? It won't take long to figure it out. Do a judicial search on his name. :coffee:

So a candidate presents himself here and its someone no one ever heard of before. He posts a link to his campaign site, so I decide to at least take a look and see what he has to offer.

"The one and the most important platform position by JP Cusick is to reform the Child Support system."

The ONE platform position...out of all the problems in this state...this is the ONE platform position.

Here's a clue "Mr. Next Governor of Maryland": Child Support System reform is number 999 out of 1000.

Besides, any candidate that puts a link to a Michael Jackson YouTube video (that has been removed) on his official website can only be expected to be labeled the same way: Wacko.
Were you around here the last time he ran for office?

Good luck JPC :yay:

:starcat: Well thank you Pete.

And now I have to take back all the awful things I said about you. :doh:

:starcat: Well thank you Pete.

And now I have to take back all the awful things I said about you. :doh:

No need, I still think you are a complete and total moron and a waste of human skin, but you are ambitious......oblivious but ambitious.

No need, I still think you are a complete and total moron and a waste of human skin, but you are ambitious......oblivious but ambitious.

:roflmao: :roflmao: :gaspingforbreath: :roflmao: :roflmao:

:coffee: That is because we now have innocent parents in jail for child support when the parents have done nothing wrong and so releasing them immediately is the decent and just thing to do.

And every one of the parents (mothers and fathers) are all innocent, while the child support laws are all severely corrupt.

So that would be the foremost improvement that I could make first. :patriot:


Are these parents in Jail because they didn't have and wouldn't work to pay child support? I understand stuff happens and maybe sometimes people get behind but if the parents aren't working to pay it then they deserve to be in jail.. Now my issue is if they have been working and got laid off and got behind until they found work again those parents shouldn't be jailed..


So my question is: Are you trying to free the deadbeats that don't/wont work?

The village idiot returns.

Have you gotten off welfare and disability payments yet? Got your own computer and Internet service, or are you still using the library's computers that we, the people that pay taxes, pay for?

Are these parents in Jail because they didn't have and wouldn't work to pay child support? I understand stuff happens and maybe sometimes people get behind but if the parents aren't working to pay it then they deserve to be in jail.. Now my issue is if they have been working and got laid off and got behind until they found work again those parents shouldn't be jailed..


So my question is: Are you trying to free the deadbeats that don't/wont work?

He is a former deadbeat. That is why he is so hard over on releasing deadbeats from jail. He didn't like being incarcerated.

You're fairly new to this site huh? It won't take long to figure it out. Do a judicial search on his name. :coffee:

Were you around here the last time he ran for office?
Well, obviously there's something I missed. Can someone give me the Cliff Notes?

Are these parents in Jail because they didn't have and wouldn't work to pay child support? I understand stuff happens and maybe sometimes people get behind but if the parents aren't working to pay it then they deserve to be in jail.. Now my issue is if they have been working and got laid off and got behind until they found work again those parents shouldn't be jailed..


So my question is: Are you trying to free the deadbeats that don't/wont work?
:coffee: I say we must finally recognize that if (only if) there are any parents (mothers or fathers) that refused to work as their way of not paying child support then that means that (or those) parent(s) are doing some honest civil disobedience and if any of the parents actually did go to jail refusing to pay their child support then I would want to meet such a parent and shake their hand for standing on righteous ground.

But I do not believe there is even one (not even 1) parent in jail for refusing to work.

I see that claim as just a slander and a lie to justify the huge injustice going on.

And truly if there is just one (or more) then I want to meet them. :patriot:

Hi JPC and welcome back! :howdy:

(Now you have to take back all those things you said about me, too :lol:)

JPC, if I were a Democrat, I would vote for you over Martin O'Malley. Seriously. I will take releasing the deadbeat dads over being taxed to death any day.

Well, obviously there's something I missed. Can someone give me the Cliff Notes?

I'm sure JPC will be re-capping just fine here in the next few weeks.

Well, obviously there's something I missed. Can someone give me the Cliff Notes?

Hi Rom,

I ran for the Maryland Legislature district 29B in 2006 and got 13% of the primary vote.

Then in 2008 I ran for the US Congress 5th District and I got 17% of that primary vote.

And 17% means over 19,000 votes for JP.

So now I run for Governor 2010. :patriot:

:coffee: I say we must finally recognize that if (only if) there are any parents (mothers or fathers) that refused to work as their way of not paying child support then that means that (or those) parent(s) are doing some honest civil disobedience and if any of the parents actually did go to jail refusing to pay their child support then I would want to meet such a parent and shake their hand for standing on righteous ground.

But I do not believe there is even one (not even 1) parent in jail for refusing to work.

I see that claim as just a slander and a lie to justify the huge injustice going on.

And truly if there is just one (or more) then I want to meet them. :patriot:


Well you wont get my vote.. GL though Sir... :doh: You must be blind to not see that those parents that are in Jail WONT pay because either they WONT work or other excuses they give ... NO lies Sir just the truth and the facts.. Go sit in a court room one day for child support and see for yourself!!!

Well, obviously there's something I missed. Can someone give me the Cliff Notes?

http://forums.somd.com/members/jpc-sr.html

Pull up a chair and search his previous threads...

Go sit in a court room one day for child support and see for yourself!!!He has, they called him "defendent".

Hi JPC and welcome back! :howdy:
:coffee: Well thank you and I am happy to be back.

And my first critique is that I can not find the icon with the waving hand, like :howdy:

(Now you have to take back all those things you said about me, too :lol:)
:yay: You are correct, and yes I do take it all back.

Of course I also remember how you can get really REALLY angry some times. :drama:

JPC, if I were a Democrat, I would vote for you over Martin O'Malley. Seriously. I will take releasing the deadbeat dads over being taxed to death any day.
:nono: After I win in the primary (September) then you get to vote JP in the final General Election in November. :patriot:

You sound like an intelligent man, i will vote for you.:yay:

So I guess that means you don't care about the kids or their mothers.
:coffee: Well of course I care a lot about the kids and about the mothers and the whole family, but the corrupt child support hurts everyone involved.

We really have to seek out what "child support" really means, because having laws that break up the family unit and subsidizes broken families is not a healthy or productive way to help anyone.

I will bring big improvements to our laws. :patriot:

JP, can I suggest paying for a web site. Your free one popped up with an add by Google saying McDonnel for Governor. :lmao:

:coffee: I happen to like "free" and free suits me just fine.

Also the State Board of Elections requires that I report my expenditures but free stuff I do not have to report.

And Bob McDonnel is a Virginia candidate and a conservative (R) so he can pop-up over my website any time and that is fine with me.

America the beautiful. :patriot:

:coffee: That is because we now have innocent parents in jail for child support when the parents have done nothing wrong and so releasing them immediately is the decent and just thing to do.

And every one of the parents (mothers and fathers) are all innocent, while the child support laws are all severely corrupt.

So that would be the foremost improvement that I could make first. :patriot:

That still doesn't explain how it would improve the current system. That is what we're trying to do, right?

:coffee: Well of course I care a lot about the kids and about the mothers and the whole family, but the corrupt child support hurts everyone involved.

We really have to seek out what "child support" really means, because having laws that break up the family unit and subsidizes broken families is not a healthy or productive way to help anyone.

I will bring big improvements to our laws. :patriot:

Aren't families involved with the child support system already broken up? Hence, the reason child support must be paid - because there is no legal family unit left after divorce or something like that?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm with everyone else in your seeming to want to free deadbeats. I mean, it's a waste to jail non-violent criminals, but they need to be punished for not supporting their children in some manner. They played, they pay.

The village idiot returns.
:coffee: Hi 2A,

so my understanding is that saying came from Sigmund Freud and he went on to say that the "village idiot" could be found in every little village preaching God and damnation and salvation which the villagers all hated to hear, and that is why the person was called an idiot by the villagers.

Have you gotten off welfare and disability payments yet?
:faint: No, my disabilities are permanent for the rest of my life.

Even when I move into the Governor's mansion I will still need some accommodations for my disabilities.

And FYI, I do explain my disabilities on my campaign website page 2.

Got your own computer and Internet service, or are you still using the library's computers that we, the people that pay taxes, pay for?
:razz: Sure I got my own PC and DSL and other benefits too. :patriot:

Is this a joke? This guy I mean, is he a joke? Or is he really running?

Is this a joke? This guy I mean, is he a joke? Or is he really running?

Unfortunately, not.

I will bring big improvements to our laws. :patriot:

Well, you certainly couldn't hurt them, that's for sure.

Now, here's my brilliant idea:

Tie the child support issue into Cash for Clunkers! Tell custodial parents that you will give them $2000 to drop charges against the non-custodial person who should be paying child support. That's more than they're getting while deadbeat is in jail, right? So they should go for that.

"We'll give you cash for your clunker!"

Then deadbeat gets out of jail, and can go to work, which will put tax money back in the coffers - easily more than the $2000 the state paid bebe mama! And actually what you might want to do is give deadbeat a savings account with, say, $10,000 in it. That way he can pay off any future bebe mamas who might want to give him an issue.

Saving taxpayer dollars and keeping families together! :clap:

That still doesn't explain how it would improve the current system. That is what we're trying to do, right?

:pete: I meant that as only the very first step on Inauguration Day, but much more improving will need to follow.

And I do have limitations as I can not type very well and much of the improvements will need to be worked out with the Legislature so it is more complicated then easy, and it will be a lot of work for me to do.

The second best improvement would likely be to fire all the c/s agents throughout the State since they are hurting our society.

And I will explain more as time goes on but I do have to sleep and eat and do other stuff in between postings some times.

But improve the system we will do. :patriot:

Then in 2008 I ran for the US Congress 5th District and I got 17% of that primary vote.


Yeah, but Toppick's Birthday thread was way longer than yours.

:pete: I meant that as only the very first step on Inauguration Day, but much more improving will need to follow.

And I do have limitations as I can not type very well and much of the improvements will need to be worked out with the Legislature so it is more complicated then easy, and it will be a lot of work for me to do.

The second best improvement would likely be to fire all the c/s agents throughout the State since they are hurting our society.

And I will explain more as time goes on but I do have to sleep and eat and do other stuff in between postings some times.

But improve the system we will do. :patriot:


How do you plan to get dead beat parents to be financially responsible for their offspring?

Pretty direct question. I expect a direct answer.

How do you plan to get dead beat parents to be financially responsible for their offspring?T

That's the beauty of it - they don't have to be! The government has a ton of money and there's no reason why THEY can't pay for stuff. Don't you remember? If the kid has a roof over their head and some ramen once a day, they don't need anything else. They are perfectly well cared for and making some poor schmuck cough up his hard earned money is just wrong.

I can't believe I'm the only person who remembers the line of thought... :doh:

That's the beauty of it - they don't have to be! The government has a ton of money and there's no reason why THEY can't pay for stuff. Don't you remember? If the kid has a roof over their head and some ramen once a day, they don't need anything else. They are perfectly well cared for and making some poor schmuck cough up his hard earned money is just wrong.

I can't believe I'm the only person who remembers the line of thought... :doh:

Hmm...you're right. I don't remember the Ramen Noodle part. :ohwell:

Aren't families involved with the child support system already broken up? Hence, the reason child support must be paid - because there is no legal family unit left after divorce or something like that?
:coffee: The families do have troubles and complications, but we need laws that help to keep the family units together.

After the laws get involved then the family unit is not only broken-up because the laws destroy any possibility of reconciliation and so the breaking up is done by the laws now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm with everyone else in your seeming to want to free deadbeats.
:elaine: That is because you have been told the slander and it is a lie. The parents are not "deadbeats" as they are just mothers and fathers being mistreated by an ignorant set of laws.

I mean, it's a waste to jail non-violent criminals, but they need to be punished for not supporting their children in some manner. They played, they pay.
:coffee: The children are all supported just fine, and if not then we would put the custodial into jail and take the kids.

Many say the separated parents need punished but they have done nothing wrong and nothing to be punished for.

That is why child support is really a parenting police and the parents in jail are all dead broke. If the parent had money or property then the law would seize it all, so only ONLY dead broke parents go to jail.

We really do need to start facing up to the realities and stop slandering parents. :patriot:

Hmm...you're right. I don't remember the Ramen Noodle part. :ohwell:
Well, cheese sandwich - whatever it was....

JPC, if you put the custodial parent in jail for not providing for their child, what happens to the child?

He is a former deadbeat. That is why he is so hard over on releasing deadbeats from jail. He didn't like being incarcerated.

Wasnt his son a deadbeat also?

:coffee: The families do have troubles and complications, but we need laws that help to keep the family units together.

After the laws get involved then the family unit is not only broken-up because the laws destroy any possibility of reconciliation and so the breaking up is done by the laws now.

:elaine: That is because you have been told the slander and it is a lie. The parents are not "deadbeats" as they are just mothers and fathers being mistreated by an ignorant set of laws.

But the deadbeats are there. The ones that don't support their children in any way, and often deny the fact that the child is even theirs, even after proven in a lab.

Are you saying you want to let these guys off the hook, too?

How do you plan to get dead beat parents to be financially responsible for their offspring?

Pretty direct question. I expect a direct answer.
:coffee: There really is just-no-such-thing as you describe.

That is all just propaganda and slander and not real.

There are no deadbeat parents, and no such responsibility, and the offspring need their real parents and not their parents' stolen money.

The truth is far more simple than the slander. :patriot:

JPC, if you put the custodial parent in jail for not providing for their child, what happens to the child?
:doh: I do not want to put any custodial into jail unless they commit a violent crime,

but as the law stands now the custodial can be put into jail for neglect.

And this would be another justification of not harassing the separated parents since if the custodial were to be abusive then the separated parent could be given custody.

But that is kind-of going off the track of child support reform. :patriot:

But the deadbeats are there. The ones that don't support their children in any way, and often deny the fact that the child is even theirs, even after proven in a lab.

Are you saying you want to let these guys off the hook, too?
:elaine: It is my finding that each of all those parents are only trying to get away from the punitive child support enforcement and if you stop threatening those same parents (mothers and fathers) then those parents would be happy to embrace their own children.

The State has a huge big threat against the parents starting the day the child is born, and the parents are running away from the threats and it is not true that any of them run from their children.

Take away the threats and we will see a big improvement, and that would be real improvement indeed. :patriot:

:doh: I do not want to put any custodial into jail unless they commit a violent crime,

but as the law stands now the custodial can be put into jail for neglect.

And this would be another justification of not harassing the separated parents since if the custodial were to be abusive then the separated parent could be given custody.

But that is kind-of going off the track of child support reform. :patriot:

But if the separated parent is dead broke, then how will they provide for the child? You're saying that parents get thrown in jail for being dead broke, not deadbeats. What if both parents are dead broke? Who provides for the child then?

JPC, you're going to be facing these questions in the debates so you might as well work on your answers now. :yay:

And I'll be honest - at least you DO answer the questions. O'Malley and Steny never did that.

But if the separated parent is dead broke, then how will they provide for the child? You're saying that parents get thrown in jail for being dead broke, not deadbeats. What if both parents are dead broke? Who provides for the child then?
:coffee: If parents with a child is broke or just poor then they can get assistance from their family or from Churches and if they qualify then they can get public assistance.

There truly is no ethical logic in confronting poor parents. :patriot:

After I win in the primary (September) then you get to vote JP in the final General Election in November. :patriot:

More delusions of grandeur.

:coffee: If parents with a child is broke or just poor then they can get assistance from their family or from Churches and if they qualify then they can get public assistance.

:yay:

But you don't believe that there are just some people who run out on their kids, have plenty of money, but don't want to provide financially for their child?

Like, what if a guy makes $300,000 a year, but just doesn't want to pay child support? Like, he wants a new house or boat or something instead? What will you do about those guys?

:razz: Sure I got my own PC and DSL and other benefits too. :patriot:

Paid for by us tax payers, right? If so, I want a refund. I don't support stupid.

More delusions of grandeur.

Shhh. We're tweaking his platform.

You know, I voted for him in the last election just because I hated steny.
and, I dont see much chance of any republican becoming governor of maryland next time around, and I hate omalley.

so,
JPC, first off welcome back, I always enjoy plucking your last nerve, great fun, greattttt fun.

Now, here is the deal.
You let the counties keep their own money, make baltimore support itself for a change, reverse those foolish tax increases that the criminal omalley pushed on us in a midnight session.
and in return

I will cast my vote for you.

One other thing.

Any time the state of Maryland lets a deadbeat dad off the hook, I want to see that mother given one of the minority set aside jobs to make up for the loss so she can raise her children with pride.

Mr Deadbeat has to keep paying until the state places the mother in an adequate job.

:yay:

But you don't believe that there are just some people who run out on their kids, have plenty of money, but don't want to provide financially for their child?

Like, what if a guy makes $300,000 a year, but just doesn't want to pay child support? Like, he wants a new house or boat or something instead? What will you do about those guys?
:coffee: Parents have a God-given right to raise their own kids by their own standards and that is not to be the gov's business unless their is real abuse.

Bill Gates has 40 Billion dollars and he has said publicly that he is not giving that money to his kids while alive or after he dies.

And no one wants to pay the thieving child support as it is only paid by gov imposed force and that is the reality.

Poor parents are like Bill Gates in that he takes care of his children but he does not pour out 25 % on the brats.

We really must separate the 2 systems in that the way the system works now has no comparison to way I will improve it all.

All parents (all Moms and all Dads) want to provide the very best to their own kids, but nobody wants to be robbed. :patriot:

:coffee: Parents have a God-given right to raise their own kids by their own standards and that is not to be the gov's business unless their is real abuse.

Bill Gates has 40 Billion dollars and he has said publicly that he is not giving that money to his kids while alive or after he dies.

And no one wants to pay the thieving child support as it is only paid by gov imposed force and that is the reality.

Poor parents are like Bill Gates in that he takes care of his children but he does not pour out 25 % on the brats.

We really must separate the 2 systems in that the way the system works now has no comparison to way I will improve it all.

All parents (all Moms and all Dads) want to provide the very best to their own kids, but nobody wants to be robbed. :patriot:

Can't believe you called someone's kids brats, you are one class act. :sarcasm: You need a reality check and soon. Make sure on your website, you put a link back to all your posts here.

Can't believe you called someone's kids brats, you are one class act. :sarcasm: You need a reality check and soon. Make sure on your website, you put a link back to all your posts here.
He lives in the subsidy housing in lexington park. If those are the kids he is used to, what would you expect?

Can't believe you called someone's kids brats, you are one class act. :sarcasm: You need a reality check and soon. Make sure on your website, you put a link back to all your posts here.

:doh: I guess you are correct that "brats" was not the best thing for me to call them, but it is Bill Gates that refuses to kick out the 10 Billion dollars to each of his kids.

25% of 40B = 10B cash. :patriot:

:coffee: There really is just-no-such-thing as you describe.

That is all just propaganda and slander and not real.

There are no deadbeat parents, and no such responsibility, and the offspring need their real parents and not their parents' stolen money.

The truth is far more simple than the slander. :patriot:

Who are their real parents? :confused:

:coffee: Parents have a God-given right to raise their own kids by their own standards and that is not to be the gov's business unless their is real abuse.

I understand that. But what I'm saying is what happens when Mom has custody but is dead broke, and Dad has plenty of money but just doesn't want to help pay for the child? Or abandons the child altogether, not seeing it at all or helping to raise it.

What happens then?

What happens then?

Too bad, so sad.

I understand that. But what I'm saying is what happens when Mom has custody but is dead broke, and Dad has plenty of money but just doesn't want to help pay for the child? Or abandons the child altogether, not seeing it at all or helping to raise it.

What happens then?

Too bad, so sad.

They have small mouths and don't eat much and they can sleep on the sofa. At the taxpayers expense, of course.

and they can sleep on the sofa. At the taxpayers expense, of course.

Now I gotta be buying folks sofas... WTF...:burning:

Now I gotta be buying folks sofas... WTF...:burning:

If you are lucky enough, you might be able to find one on the curb after a broke deadbeat got evicted because he wouldn't pay his rent either.

Well now Im hurt
out of everyone on here, there is a very good chance that I am the only one that voted for him against hoyer.

and he wont even respond to me.:cds:

F-ing politicians. take and take and take, but want to give nothing back.

Who are their real parents? :confused:

:buddies: That question seem confusing to me, but as a direct and honest answer - the real parents are the biological Mom and Dad.

And just because a Custodial and the Courts declare a different person as the Mom or Dad the real parent remains the biological parent only.
:drummer:

Well now Im hurt
out of everyone on here, there is a very good chance that I am the only one that voted for him against hoyer.

and he wont even respond to me.:cds:

F-ing politicians. take and take and take, but want to give nothing back.

:howdy: Sorry bcp but you are still a nasty rotten jerk and I have a hard time getting past that to reply to your comments.

You are just way WAY out of my league. :patriot:

I understand that.
:howdy: First, thanks for the waver icon.

But what I'm saying is what happens when Mom has custody but is dead broke,
:popcorn: Whether it is a Mom or Dad that has custody - then they never ever end up dead broke unless the custodial is throwing their resources away (and some really do waste their assets), and if the custodial is wasting or misusing their money so the child(ren) are neglected then they need to be removed from that custody.

See parents with children always have access to assistance of various kinds and if a custodial needs anything ANYTHING for a child then they only need to report their need to the proper places and the custodial with child will be provided with food, clothing, housing, cash, any medical or dental, and much more.

So there is no-such-thing as a dead broke custodial unless the custodial is dysfunctional or stupid.

and Dad has plenty of money but just doesn't want to help pay for the child?
:bigwhoop: In our present system the separated parents are portrayed as selfish and unloving but it is just a slander and not true.

There are many separated parents that do not want to be robbed by child support and the parents do not want child support stealing their money and I say God bless those parents and we need to stop the injustice going on.

Or abandons the child altogether, not seeing it at all or helping to raise it. :popcorn: This is a really big problem in that the parents are forcible separated from their children and it needs to be stopped.

And I do see that people blame the separated parents and that is one of the most ugliest things done by the injustices of child support.

It is our present unjust and corrupt child support laws that steals the children from the separated parents, and the present system that alienates and degrades the separated parents and then blames the same separated parents for the actions of the system.

All one has to do is stop viewing the separated parents as some kind of inhuman monster and start seeing the separated parents as human beings with human feelings and as human parents, because that way we all can see that nobody / no parent is separated from their own children except by force.

What happens then?
:whistle: What happen "then" under our present system is brutal injustices, but when we make improvements then we can start helping to promote and protect the family unit as we do not do now.

:drummer:

oh and welcome back, JP!

:dye: Well thank you for that welcome and it feels great to be back on Board.

I have been off this Forum for a year and a half and I missed the debates and the conflicts and it took me a while to detox from it.

And I knew I was going to run for Governor a year and a half ago but I felt I could not return here until I factually registered as a candidate and that took me a lot of patience.

This time the campaign is going to escalate much more then ever before - at least this is the plan. :yahoo:

See parents with children always have access to assistance of various kinds and if a custodial needs anything ANYTHING for a child then they only need to report their need to the proper places and the custodial with child will be provided with food, clothing, housing, cash, any medical or dental, and much more.


So it is back to making the tax payers pay for what the deadbeat parent should be paying for.

Your are a typical dysfunctional, victim minded, Democrat that thinks that they are owed something just because they were born. The ONLY thing you are owed is an equal chance. If you blow it, then guess what? Tough. Too bad; so sad.

There are plenty of people that started in poor families that have gotten wealthy by hard work; something you know nothing of.

(c) The General Assembly, by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of all its members in joint session, may adopt a resolution declaring that the Governor or Lieutenant Governor is unable by reason of physical or mental disability to perform the duties of his office. When action is undertaken pursuant to this subsection of the Constitution, the officer who concludes that the other officer is unable, by reason of disability to perform the duties of his office shall have the power to call the General Assembly into Joint Session. The resolution, if adopted, shall be delivered to the Court of Appeals, which then shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether that officer is unable by reason of the disability to perform the duties of his office. If the Court of Appeals determines that such officer is unable to discharge the duties of his office by reason of a permanent disability, the office shall be vacant.

Who's your lieutenant?

By the way, Jimmyhat, I'll switch parties and vote for you in the primary. Anything to defeat the Dems in the general election! If we had done that last year, we would have a Republican representing us right now instead of that lying, self serving, POS typical Democrat.

TTFN!!!

I read thru this whole thread and I only got one thing out of it..... Wanna know what it is?




I am sick to death of Rock and Roll.

:howdy: Sorry bcp but you are still a nasty rotten jerk and I have a hard time getting past that to reply to your comments.

You are just way WAY out of my league. :patriot:
Now coming from someone that abandoned their family and did nothing to help while his wife died from cancer, someone that suggests its ok to not help pay for the children because they have all they need from the government.

that cuts me, that really cuts me.. hard.:drama:

I shall begin sending your posts to the Annapolis news media, or, maybe the Omalley re-election committee, they should get a kick out of this. as much as I do.
still, since Maryland is already so screwed up, I believe I would have to vote for JPC just for the 2 months of laughs before he was forced out of office.

You guys are mean. But it's good that JPC get used to this sort of thing before he becomes governor and has the media breathing down his neck. :yay:

JPC, I hope you beat MOM in the primary, I sincerely do. :clap:

I nominate Andy Marquis to be your pick for Lt. Gov. :yay:
fred should be the LT. Gov.
fred is like a millionare and stuff.

plus they could set freds moms basement up for their headquarters.

Wow. I never thought we'd see this guy again. I'd like to say it's gonna be interesting but I seriously doubt he has gained any IQ points since he buggered off...:coffee:

Wow. I never thought we'd see this guy again. I'd like to say it's gonna be interesting but I seriously doubt he has gained any IQ points since he buggered off...:coffee:
you know, I think you are right.
we can see this in his home page, he has a one track mind. Child support, as in you shouldnt have to pay.

but, dont fear JPC, I the a-hole will help. I will outline a very simple plan to get you a win in the state.
This plan is based on one thing.
Most people dont know anything about you. That in your case is a plus. lets keep it that way.

now.
step one.
forget about the child support, dont even mention it. here is why.
Most of the dead beat dads are out of the state. You wont get there vote, that leaves the mothers trying to raise the children on their own, do you think that telling them that they dont deserve any assistance from the father is going to get you their vote? NO.
so, you are trading off a bunch of no votes for a whole bunch more possible votes.
Drop the child support ideas until you are elected, then sneak it in. You are a dem, you should be good at this.

next.
You are running your campaign on a southern Maryland web site, not good. the people that might vote for you are in PG county, and Baltimore City with a few stragglers in Montgomery and Howard. The plus? they dont know you.

so,
base your campaign on the fact that white people are stingy, they try to keep the blacks down by not allowing proper and equal funding to the schools. Tell them that you are going to give more money to these locations and less to the white areas.

next claim that the basis of a strong community is in the private business that sets up in that community.
again lie, tell them that you are going to be offering set up money, no taxes on new business and incentives to hire within the community for the locations mentioned.

Explain how those on welfare should not be living below poverty, how its the states responsibility to support them in an equal manner that the stingy working whites are living in.

Use your dead wife as an example of your hardship and your understanding of how the medical insurance industry lets us down.

now, go work on this and get a plan. go to your website and change it, drop the child support. get rid of the MJ link to youtube.
Oh, and beg for money, they all do it and it is expected.


see, Im here to help.

almost forgot.
paint your bronco pink (brushing by hand with a good interior latex is fine) and put a Liza wig on the hood.
This will get you the gay vote.

I'm waiting for the illegal immigration and sanctuary city policies to become public...

Would he be that much worse than who we have in there now?:lmao:

You guys are mean. But it's good that JPC get used to this sort of thing before he becomes governor and has the media breathing down his neck. :yay:
:buddies: I can manage over any of the mean guys. :evil:

:patriot: Greetings.

I just want to introduce myself as being the next Governor of the State of Maryland.

Campaign website is HERE (http://www.VoteJP.Webs.com).

The registration with the State Board of Elections was done on Tuesday.

My name is James P. Cusick Sr., but I will be listed on the Democratic Party election ballot as just "J.P. Cusick", as I see that having a better ring to it.

Democrats rock! :larry:

Oh no not again! :killingme

Just what we need another deadbeat governor. :cds:

First it was County Commissioner.....Lost

Then it was Congress......Lost

Now it is Governor.....Will lose

Setting the stage for a 2012 run at the White House......Just might win that one...Stranger things have happened...

First it was County Commissioner.....Lost

Then it was Congress......Lost

Now it is Governor.....Will lose

Setting the stage for a 2012 run at the White House......Just might win that one...Stranger things have happened...

OMG, you're probably right although when I see his posts, I really can't help but think he's a big joke.

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

You guys are mean. But it's good that JPC get used to this sort of thing before he becomes governor and has the media breathing down his neck. :yay:

JPC, I hope you beat MOM in the primary, I sincerely do. :clap:

Mean is telling a retarded kid he can be an astronaut, an alcoholic he can drink normally, or a mentally ill loser he can be governor.

Thw truth may hurt but the lie hurts more.

JPC, you're going to be facing these questions in the debates so you might as well work on your answers now. :yay:

And I'll be honest - at least you DO answer the questions. O'Malley and Steny never did that.Don't encourage him. An idiot, running for any office, is not a good thing. There are too many stupid people out there that might vote for him. :doh:

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

First it was County Commissioner.....Lost

Then it was Congress......Lost

Now it is Governor.....Will lose

Setting the stage for a 2012 run at the White House......Just might win that one...Stranger things have happened...

and then Miss America.

:popcorn: Whether it is a Mom or Dad that has custody - then they never ever end up dead broke unless the custodial is throwing their resources away (and some really do waste their assets), and if the custodial is wasting or misusing their money so the child(ren) are neglected then they need to be removed from that custody.

See parents with children always have access to assistance of various kinds and if a custodial needs anything ANYTHING for a child then they only need to report their need to the proper places and the custodial with child will be provided with food, clothing, housing, cash, any medical or dental, and much more.

So there is no-such-thing as a dead broke custodial unless the custodial is dysfunctional or stupid.


You just confirmed what I already knew, you are dysfunctional AND stupid. I am the custodian of two children that are not mine. I do not qualify for any assistance for these children such as food, clothing, housing, cash because I have a JOB, that I use to support my OWN child with.

SO, you are now talking to a dead broke "custodial" who is not "throwing their resources away or wasting or misusing their money.

What's your solution to this?

:yeahthat::roflmao::killingme

:yeahthat: :buddies: :killingme :bigwhoop: :lol: :loser:

He will be running on a platform of abandoning your children is a good thing.

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

Jimmy, did you meet your running mate in prison? Were you cellmates?

Who did he assault?

My name is James P. Cusick Sr., but I will be listed on the Democratic Party election ballot as just "J.P. Cusick", as I see that having a better ring to it.


Dear J.P. Cusick.

You can't be any worse than Martin O'Malley. Good luck to you in your campaign.


Warmest regards,
Tox

Dear J.P. Cusick.

You can't be any worse than Martin O'Malley. Good luck to you in your campaign.


Warmest regards,
Tox
And as a bonus, the state house and governors mansion will get a new stylish paint job when the assembly refuses to go along with his hair brained idea of child neglect.

I honestly plan to vote for him just so I can sit back and laugh my ass off if he wins.

:coffee: That is because we now have innocent parents in jail for child support when the parents have done nothing wrong and so releasing them immediately is the decent and just thing to do.

And every one of the parents (mothers and fathers) are all innocent, while the child support laws are all severely corrupt.

So that would be the foremost improvement that I could make first. :patriot:

This post makes me :lol:

So a candidate presents himself here and its someone no one ever heard of before. He posts a link to his campaign site, so I decide to at least take a look and see what he has to offer.

"The one and the most important platform position by JP Cusick is to reform the Child Support system."

The ONE platform position...out of all the problems in this state...this is the ONE platform position.

Here's a clue "Mr. Next Governor of Maryland": Child Support System reform is number 999 out of 1000.

Besides, any candidate that puts a link to a Michael Jackson YouTube video (that has been removed) on his official website can only be expected to be labeled the same way: Wacko.

This post makes me :roflmao:

You just confirmed what I already knew, you are dysfunctional AND stupid.
:howdy: Well not everybody can be perfect. :crazy:

I am the custodian of two children that are not mine.
:buddies: Now that is kind of odd, so if those children are not yours then you must have some one else's children.

That seems like an example of breaking up a family unit, but it might not be so if the real parents are dead and then this would be a noble deed of yours.

I do not qualify for any assistance for these children such as food, clothing, housing, cash because I have a JOB, that I use to support my OWN child with.
:buddies: Congratulations - that is wonderful, cheers to you.

SO, you are now talking to a dead broke "custodial" who is not "throwing their resources away or wasting or misusing their money.
:whistle: Since you already have all your needs met and paid then you are not really dead broke.

You will get a next paycheck soon enough.

What's your solution to this?
:otter: When there is no need then there is nothing to solve. :love:

Dear J.P. Cusick.

You can't be any worse than Martin O'Malley. Good luck to you in your campaign.

Warmest regards,
Tox

:buddies: Thank you Tox, and I do remember that you were always one of the more mature posters on this Board.

I supported O'Malley and I voted for him and I say he betrayed us all. :barf:

:whistle: Since you already have all your needs met and paid then you are not really dead broke.

You will get a next paycheck soon enough.

:otter: When there is no need then there is nothing to solve. :love:

I never said my needs were getting met, and yes, there will be a pay check. In the mean time, would you loan me some money from your campaign until I get that next check? TYVM!

you do this, and I'll vote JPC all day long!

Dear J.P. Cusick.

You can't be any worse than Martin O'Malley. Good luck to you in your campaign.


Warmest regards,
Tox

STOP IT! :smack:

Dear J.P. Cusick.

You can't be any worse than Martin O'Malley. Good luck to you in your campaign.


Warmest regards,
Tox

Actually, I am leaving Maryland in a couple of years. So I will gladly vote for JP also over OMalley. It will be a hoot if he wins!
:crazy:

Actually, I am leaving Maryland in a couple of years. So I will gladly vote for JP also over OMalley. It will be a hoot if he wins!
:crazy:
Be like a bad realty show with no chance of a winner.

:buddies: Thank you Tox, and I do remember that you were always one of the more mature posters on this Board.

Thanks. I was initially hostile toward you because of your laizzez-faire attitude of child-support and what it means to be parent; but over the course if time I've tried to modify that behavior and act somewhat cordial if not always friendly to you, even though a lot of your policies blow my mind and trying to follow your logic can sometimes induce a migraine.

However, you have a ruggedly thick skin in the face of extreme hostility and I can dig that.



I supported O'Malley and I voted for him and I say he betrayed us all. :barf:

He has indeed betrayed us all.

However, many of us who didn't vote for him saw it coming.


I do think that you would make a better governor than MOM.... however take that with a grain of salt and realize that's not exactly high praise, considering that I think a lobotomized guinea pig would make a better governor than O'Malley.

I never said my needs were getting met, and yes, there will be a pay check. In the mean time, would you loan me some money from your campaign until I get that next check? TYVM!

you do this, and I'll vote JPC all day long!
:popcorn: It does not matter if your needs are getting met - it only matters if the needs of the children are being met or not.

Since you are an adult then you are required (not required by me) that you take care of your self, and if you are married then your hubby would be first in seeking needs, but if you are single then I will take you out on the town and we can party down whether you vote for me or not.

I am single and it might be better if I had a woman to move into the Governor's Mansion.

:larry:

Since you are an adult then you are required (not required by me) that you take care of your self, and if you are married then your hubby would be first in seeking needs, but if you are single then I will take you out on the town and we can party down whether you vote for me or not.

I am single and it might be better if I had a woman to move into the Governor's Mansion.

:larry:

Smoooooooth! :jet::yay:

Oh my flipping God. :eyebrow:

Since you are an adult then you are required (not required by me) that you take care of your self, and if you are married then your hubby would be first in seeking needs, but if you are single then I will take you out on the town and we can party down whether you vote for me or not.

I am single and it might be better if I had a woman to move into the Governor's Mansion.

:larry:

Will you be paying for the babysitter? I'm not so sure she can afford it.

Smoooooooth! :jet::yay:

:lol: Yeah, about as smooth as ExLax....

Will you be paying for the babysitter? I'm not so sure she can afford it.
:party: Well she might have some free baby sitters like family members or neighbors so we do not want to pass up on that.

And I would be happy to take the kids along no matter what age they might be as I like children, and we do not have to drink to have fun.

:drummer:

:party: Well she might have some free baby sitters like family members or neighbors so we do not want to pass up on that.

And I would be happy to take the kids along no matter what age they might be as I like children, and we do not have to drink to have fun.

:drummer:

You should take them all out to a nice dinner then. Let them order whatever their hearts desire.

:party: Well she might have some free baby sitters like family members or neighbors so we do not want to pass up on that.

And I would be happy to take the kids along no matter what age they might be as I like children, and we do not have to drink to have fun.

:drummer:
Heck with staying sober on a first date, just PM LovingMaryland and find out her favorite happy hour spots that she takes her kids to!

You should take them all out to a nice dinner then. Let them order whatever their hearts desire.

:buddies: Well I am a strict vegetarian, so any date of mine has got to go veggie. :love:

.

I am single and it might be better if I had a woman to move into the Governor's Mansion.

:larry:
Are you trying to tell us that with your background and respect for women, You dont have one of your own?

this is just proof that there is no pleasing a woman.

You would think that you would be unable to keep them off your porch.

:buddies: Well I am a strict vegetarian, so any date of mine has got to go veggie. :love:

So you would dictate how and what your date should eat? I'm sorry to say that things would never work out between us. My kid and I both like our steaks bloody. :moo:

:buddies: Well I am a strict vegetarian, so any date of mine has got to go veggie. :love:

You're a vegetable alright. :rolleyes:

You're a vegetable alright. :rolleyes:

I'd guess a turnip.

Are you trying to tell us that with your background and respect for women, You dont have one of your own?
:whistle: I do know many women but not one to call my own.

this is just proof that there is no pleasing a woman.
:bigwhoop: I am the picky one as I do not want smokers or meat eaters or bigots or other disagreeable stuff.

You would think that you would be unable to keep them off your porch.
:evil: I am figuring that when I move into the Governor's Mansion then it will be easier to find a nice Woman. :love:

:evil: I am figuring that when I move into the Governor's Mansion then it will be easier to find a nice Woman. :love:
Does the mansion have closets full of them or something...:confused:

Does the mansion have closets full of them or something...:confused:

I bet they have an air compressor.

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

Are you trying to tell us that with your background and respect for women, You dont have one of your own?
:whistle: I do know many women but not one to call my own.

this is just proof that there is no pleasing a woman.
:bigwhoop: I am the picky one as I do not want smokers or meat eaters or bigots or other disagreeable stuff.

You would think that you would be unable to keep them off your porch.
:evil: I am figuring that when I move into the Governor's Mansion then it will be easier to find a nice Woman. :love:

So you're doing this in hopes it'll get you laid?

Not surprising since you are a Democrat. Bunch of cheap whores.

:bigwhoop: I am the picky one as I do not want smokers or meat eaters or bigots or other disagreeable stuff.


But you are a bigot against meat eating women. How hypocritical of you.

So you're doing this in hopes it'll get you laid?

Not surprising since you are a Democrat. Bunch of cheap whores.

:drummer: I would say that if you ever take your mind out of the gutter,

then you might find out that other people eventually grow up. :howdy:

:blahblah::blahblah::blahblah::blahblah::blahblah:

Same ole same ole.

:drummer: I would say that if you ever take your mind out of the gutter,

then you might find out that other people eventually grow up. :howdy:
And I would say that if you ever grow up, you might find out that most people take care of their children.

And I would say that if you ever grow up, you might find out that most people take care of their children.
:yahoo: Well this time I agree with you, and I would take it much farther by saying ALL all parents take care of their own children unless some out side force stop the parent(s).

It truly is a natural and normal instinct for all animals (including human beings) to love and raise their own offspring.

That is the ugliest part of the child support system in that it denies that simple basic truth.

Cheers to you - you old jerk. :buddies:

:yahoo: Well this time I agree with you, and I would take it much farther by saying ALL all parents take care of their own children unless some out side force stop the parent(s).

It truly is a natural and normal instinct for all animals (including human beings) to love and raise their own offspring.

That is the ugliest part of the child support system in that it denies that simple basic truth.

Cheers to you - you old jerk. :buddies:

Define out side force

You are a loon, plain and simple. Give it up, no one is going to vote for you unless it's done as a joke.

:yahoo: Well this time I agree with you, and I would take it much farther by saying ALL all parents take care of their own children unless some out side force stop the parent(s).

It truly is a natural and normal instinct for all animals (including human beings) to love and raise their own offspring.

That is the ugliest part of the child support system in that it denies that simple basic truth.

Cheers to you - you old jerk. :buddies:

What's your excuse?

Define out side force
:howdy: An outside force would be like one parent taking the child(ren) away from the other parent and that is a type of force where the separated parent is unable to properly function as the parent.

Another outside force is threats and conditions imposed by the gov and its laws.

Or where the custodial simply makes it impossible for the separated parent by illegal ways or by the custodians' immoral tactics.

And the custody laws are unnatural and inhuman forms of force that separate children from their real parent(s).

And child support stealing the parents money is another type of out side force which prevents the separated parent from fulfilling their parenting.

So there are many definitions to the "outside force" that keep human parents away from their own God given children.

Give it up, no one is going to vote for you unless it's done as a joke.
:buddies: A joke vote is actually a legitimate vote so that is no joke. :killingme

But the campaign has just begun and I do believe it is going to get really fun in due time.


RoseRed
What's your excuse?
:nomoney: I was stopped by an outside force. :duel:

Wow, you really believe the crap you spew. Unreal! Well, a joke vote is a few people voting for you to make you think you really have people that want you to win, but in reality, they are just voting for you because everyone else sucks as bad as you and they want you to actually thingk you had a chance. Get real, you'll never be anything but a dead beat.

RoseRed

:nomoney: I was stopped by an outside force. :duel:

What?!?

:coffee: That is because we now have innocent parents in jail for child support



:cds:

:patriot: Greetings.

I just want to introduce myself as being the next Governor of the State of Maryland.

Campaign website is HERE (http://www.VoteJP.Webs.com).

The registration with the State Board of Elections was done on Tuesday.

My name is James P. Cusick Sr., but I will be listed on the Democratic Party election ballot as just "J.P. Cusick", as I see that having a better ring to it.

Democrats rock! :larry:

GOD please...:smack:

What?!?
:popcorn: What I mean is that I wish that I had been there to raise my own son but there were people and events in my life that got in the way of me and my wife, and that got between me and my son, so I had intended to raise my own son and I would have done so if things had not been torn apart.

And I am not justifying myself or my actions as I do acknowledge that I myself screwed up my own family and I failed for my son and it was in fact all my own stupid and ignorant fault of my own.

I do know that I failed, but now I say we need to help young parents to help families stay together and functioning, and we need to stop the destructive laws that encourage divorces and empowers adultery and that alienate children from their parents.

When I talk about reform then I do not suggest we go back to my own stupid past but that we improve the system to serve the future.

:patriot:

:popcorn: What I mean is that I wish that I had been there to raise my own son but there were people and events in my life that got in the way of me and my wife, and that got between me and my son, so I had intended to raise my own son and I would have done so if things had not been torn apart.

And I am not justifying myself or my actions as I do acknowledge that I myself screwed up my own family and I failed for my son and it was in fact all my own stupid and ignorant fault of my own.

I do know that I failed, but now I say we need to help young parents to help families stay together and functioning, and we need to stop the destructive laws that encourage divorces and empowers adultery and that alienate children from their parents.

When I talk about reform then I do not suggest we go back to my own stupid past but that we improve the system to serve the future.

:patriot:

You and your son are best of friends now, right? :buddies:

You and your son are best of friends now, right? :buddies:
:otter: I do not see it as right for a parent to be "friends" with their adult children, because I am his father and not his friend and he is my son and not my friend.

Being a "friend" is, IMO, a lower position or lesser relationship.

And we did try to be "friends" as my son lived with me for a while a couple years ago and we even went out drinking and shooting pool and picking up women, and we did have fun, but I found that as unacceptable and I put a stop to any "friendly" relationship because my son still needs a father and not a buddy.

So we are still in contact with each other and we still have a tense and strained relationship but it does function on some levels.

Some times I feel like it was designed or meant to be that a father and son just naturally have a severe tension between them and that is the way it is in my case.

:duel:

:otter: I do not see it as right for a parent to be "friends" with their adult children, because I am his father and not his friend and he is my son and not my friend.

Being a "friend" is, IMO, a lower position or lesser relationship.

And we did try to be "friends" as my son lived with me for a while a couple years ago and we even went out drinking and shooting pool and picking up women, and we did have fun, but I found that as unacceptable and I put a stop to any "friendly" relationship because my son still needs a father and not a buddy.

So we are still in contact with each other and we still have a tense and strained relationship but it does function on some levels.

Some times I feel like it was designed or meant to be that a father and son just naturally have a severe tension between them and that is the way it is in my case.

:duel:

Most importantly, does your son eat meat?

:otter:

Some times I feel like it was designed or meant to be that a father and son just naturally have a severe tension between them and that is the way it is in my case.

:duel:

Wrong...

Most importantly, does your son eat meat?
:duel: Yes he eats animals. :barf:






Wrong...
:coffee: You might be correct, and God bless you if you are. :flowers:

at least he is running on a families value platform.

i really do think that you need to do a bit of research as there are programs in place now that are for the benefit of the non-custodial parent IE:

fatherhood programs, Job programs that assist Dads/Mom's in preparing resumes', learning computer skills, certificate programs for CDL permits, and many more training programs to assist them in finding work -other than low paying jobs. Programs to assist parents who are unable to purchase needed meds such as insulin or other maintenance meds so they can work.

These programs are there for those who will take the time and effort to improve their situation, JPC its obvious that you have not attened child support court lately as you would then be aware, that very few Dads/Moms are incarcerated. However, the courts are ordering the non-payers to make an effort and contribute to their childrens support. The economy may be bad and jobs hard to find but a person can go out cut lawns for money, wash cars etc. and make a contribution.

Even those charged with criminal non-suppoprt are released on probation, and are ordered to make continous payments as part of their probation... so you are gonna have to get off your "they tear familes apart because they just want to jail parents " soapbox.. Because they are generally incarcerated when they violate that probation.. and have been given numerous chances to become compliant with their court order. incarceration is the last resort.

The family is already separated or a child support order would not be needed.. so that spoils your one theory.. The custodial parent can at any time request terrmination of that order and forgive arrears owed. Thus child support does not "keep the family apart"

You can't base your platform on outdated information.

wow, I wondered what would happen if Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi had a child together......Now I know.

wow, I wondered what would happen if Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi had a child together......Now I know.
So his real name is James Steny Pelosi-Cusick?

So much is clear to me now.

:otter: I do not see it as right for a parent to be "friends" with their adult children, because I am his father and not his friend and he is my son and not my friend.

Being a "friend" is, IMO, a lower position or lesser relationship.

And we did try to be "friends" as my son lived with me for a while a couple years ago and we even went out drinking and shooting pool and picking up women, and we did have fun, but I found that as unacceptable and I put a stop to any "friendly" relationship because my son still needs a father and not a buddy.

So we are still in contact with each other and we still have a tense and strained relationship but it does function on some levels.

Some times I feel like it was designed or meant to be that a father and son just naturally have a severe tension between them and that is the way it is in my case.

:duel:Jimmy,

It's as good to read you now as it ever was.

[A smart man will see that as a thinly veiled insult. You'll see that as a compliment, I'm sure]

i really do think that you need to do a bit of research as there are programs in place now that are for the benefit of the non-custodial parent IE:

fatherhood programs, Job programs that assist Dads/Mom's in preparing resumes', learning computer skills, certificate programs for CDL permits, and many more training programs to assist them in finding work -other than low paying jobs. Programs to assist parents who are unable to purchase needed meds such as insulin or other maintenance meds so they can work. These programs are there for those who will take the time and effort to improve their situation, ...
:bigwhoop: That stuff is not to their benefit - no, that is to turn the parents into slaves so the law can steal more and more of the parents' money.

The parents do not need any help in getting any job - no, they need the law to stop stealing their pay checks.

...JPC its obvious that you have not attened child support court lately as you would then be aware, that very few Dads/Moms are incarcerated.
:popcorn: What I do know is that the Court records of the c/s cases are sealed so that we can not expose the dirty thievery to the public.

And I do know that the parents that do go to the Courts are the misguided parents that still trust-in-the-law and are trying to comply with the thievery but the Court trashes them anyway whether they get put into jail or not, and usually the parents are put into jail later so that like the Court records the reality is hidden from public view.

However, the courts are ordering the non-payers to make an effort and contribute to their childrens support. The economy may be bad and jobs hard to find but a person can go out cut lawns for money, wash cars etc. and make a contribution.
:bigwhoop: Any parent that cuts grass or washes cars and gives their money over to child support is either severely afraid or a complete fool.

But I will give them empowerment in due time - power to fight the thieves.

Even those charged with criminal non-suppoprt are released on probation, and are ordered to make continous payments as part of their probation...
:howdy: I am aware of that and I personally recommend to any parent put on that "probation" to turn to crime instead.

Most parents do not want to turn to crime but it seems to me as their one best option in that case.

so you are gonna have to get off your "they tear familes apart because they just want to jail parents " soapbox.. Because they are generally incarcerated when they violate that probation.. and have been given numerous chances to become compliant with their court order. incarceration is the last resort.
:whistle: I have heard the lies about how wonderful the thieves are - but stealing is never wonderful.

You can pretend that the law is playing Robin Hood but a thief is still a thief.

The family is already separated or a child support order would not be needed.. so that spoils your one theory.. The custodial parent can at any time request terrmination of that order and forgive arrears owed. Thus child support does not "keep the family apart"
:popcorn: All of that must be changed in my refoms.

You can't base your platform on outdated information.
:dye: I am very confident that my info is up to date and very valid indeed. :whistle:

It's as good to read you now as it ever was.

:yahoo: My old friend T_p.

I have been wondering where you were at.

This time I got it worked out old friend. :buddies:

ahhh I guess the programs that teach them to read are offered to enslave them as well...

ahhh I guess the programs that teach them to read are offered to enslave them as well...
:otter: It probably is meant to help enslave them,

but reading the right stuff empowers the parents so I support that. :yahoo:

:bigwhoop: That stuff is not to their benefit - no, that is to turn the parents into slaves so the law can steal more and more of the parents' money.

The parents do not need any help in getting any job - no, they need the law to stop stealing their pay checks.so people who are non-readers need no help ? Those in dead end jobs don't need help learning a new skill?

:popcorn: What I do know is that the Court records of the c/s cases are sealed so that we can not expose the dirty thievery to the public.Wrong, check Md judiciary case search

And I do know that the parents that do go to the Courts are the misguided parents that still trust-in-the-law and are trying to comply with the thievery but the Court trashes them anyway whether they get put into jail or not, and usually the parents are put into jail later so that like the Court records the reality is hidden from public view.

:bigwhoop: Any parent that cuts grass or washes cars and gives their money over to child support is either severely afraid or a complete fool.The money goes to the children

But I will give them empowerment in due time - power to fight the thieves.

:howdy: I am aware of that and I personally recommend to any parent put on that "probation" to turn to crime instead.That makes a lot of sense

Most parents do not want to turn to crime but it seems to me as their one best option in that case.hmm I guess getting a job and supporting their children doesn't?

:whistle: I have heard the lies about how wonderful the thieves are - but stealing is never wonderful.

You can pretend that the law is playing Robin Hood but a thief is still a thief.

:popcorn: All of that must be changed in my refoms.

:dye: I am very confident that my info is up to date and very valid indeed. :whistle:I am quite sure it isn't

see above

Those in dead end jobs don't need help learning a new skill?
:popcorn: The point is that the child support steals their pay and so a better paying job is just more money for the c/s to steal.

So it is not doing the person any real favor as it is just trying to make so the law can steal more.

Wrong, check Md judiciary case search
:whistle: I know all about that, but it only gives a superficial account while the actual Court records so we could see more accurately what has transpired is completely restricted from public access.

The cowardly Court hides its dirty deeds from the public. And go down to the Circuit Court and ask our elected Court Clerk if you need some proof of that.

The money goes to the children
:howdy: No, it does not. The stolen money goes to the custodial which mis-uses the loot in every case.

hmm I guess getting a job and supporting their children doesn't?
:dye: It would be supporting a corrupt system and NOT supporting children.

That is just the raw reality. :patriot:

:popcorn: The point is that the child support steals their pay and so a better paying job is just more money for the c/s to steal.

So it is not doing the person any real favor as it is just trying to make so the law can steal more.

:whistle: I know all about that, but it only gives a superficial account while the actual Court records so we could see more accurately what has transpired is completely restricted from public access.

The cowardly Court hides its dirty deeds from the public. And go down to the Circuit Court and ask our elected Court Clerk if you need some proof of that.

:howdy: No, it does not. The stolen money goes to the custodial which mis-uses the loot in every case.

:dye: It would be supporting a corrupt system and NOT supporting children.

That is just the raw reality. :patriot:

you are an F-ing idiot.
are you sure they let you out of jail and you didnt escape?

you are an F-ing idiot.
are you sure they let you out of jail and you didnt escape during a field trip to the fair?:fixed:

you are an F-ing idiot.
are you sure they let you out of a mental institutionand that you didnt escape?


*fixed*

:buddies: No need to worry, because when I do take the Office of Governor THEN then a blessed improvement will begin.

It is just a little while longer. :patriot:

:buddies: No need to worry, because when I do take the Office of Governor THEN then a blessed improvement will begin.

It is just a little while longer. :patriot:


I would like to know what else you plan on changing and doing for us... Please do tell!!

:buddies: No need to worry, because when I do take the Office of Governor THEN then a blessed improvement will begin.

It is just a little while longer. :patriot:

You really think you have a chance. You really do belong in a menal facility. Give it up JP, it's not going to happen. I'm really looking forward to the results to see just how horribly you lost.:popcorn:

I would like to know what else you plan on changing and doing for us... Please do tell!!
:flowers: Well happy-Sunday-morning sunflower. :flowers:

I certainly do plan on doing much more but I must be careful not to distort my primary platform stance of reforming the child support.

So I do have many ideas and intentions but all are secondary to that one.

And I will be posting about other issues in new threads as the campaign progresses and it is not easy keeping a discussion or a campaign on track when virtually every one tries to side track the candidates and so that is why I am being a bit resistant of just spewing out a bunch of different subjects and ideas.

So I see the job of Governor as to create a balanced State budget and try to keep taxes down or to reduce taxes and expenditures, and to promote the general welfare of the society, but that is the job of Governor and not a true platform position, IMO.

:drummer:

:flowers: Well happy-Sunday-morning sunflower. :flowers:

I certainly do plan on doing much more but I must be careful not to distort my primary platform stance of reforming the child support.

So I do have many ideas and intentions but all are secondary to that one.

And I will be posting about other issues in new threads as the campaign progresses and it is not easy keeping a discussion or a campaign on track when virtually every one tries to side track the candidates and so that is why I am being a bit resistant of just spewing out a bunch of different subjects and ideas.

So I see the job of Governor as to create a balanced State budget and try to keep taxes down or to reduce taxes and expenditures, and to promote the general welfare of the society, but that is the job of Governor and not a true platform position, IMO.

:drummer:

I'd love to see them lock you in a room with 10 single moms/dads that aren't getting their child support payments and let you spew your garbage at them. Wonder how that would go. :killingme

You really think you have a chance. You really do belong in a mental facility. Give it up JP, it's not going to happen. I'm really looking forward to the results to see just how horribly you lost.:popcorn:
:whistle: In my bid for the US Congress I got 19,067 votes see link HERE (http://www.elections.state.md.us/elections/2008/results/primary/congressional_district_05.html) and that was just in Maryland's 5th District, so I do have a firm footing and a legitimate shot at succeeding.

So you might want to reconsider your own definition of what a "mental facility" is all about.

My campaign is rolling and I am very happy with the procession. :patriot:

:whistle: In my bid for the US Congress I got 19,067 votes see link HERE (http://www.elections.state.md.us/elections/2008/results/primary/congressional_district_05.html) and that was just in Maryland's 5th District, so I do have a firm footing and a legitimate shot at succeeding.

So you might want to reconsider your own definition of what a "mental facility" is all about.

My campaign is rolling and I am very happy with the procession. :patriot:

Time will tell. I don't even live in MD but I'll be waiting for the results.

Oh and the population in the 5th district is 662,060, so that doesn't really say much.

Jimmy, who did your running mate assault?

Did you meet him in prison?

We are all aware of your qualifications, it's time to talk about the guy who will replace you when you are deemed incompotent due to mental disability.

:whistle: In my bid for the US Congress I got 19,067 votes see link HERE (http://www.elections.state.md.us/elections/2008/results/primary/congressional_district_05.html) and that was just in Maryland's 5th District, so I do have a firm footing and a legitimate shot at succeeding.

So you might want to reconsider your own definition of what a "mental facility" is all about.

My campaign is rolling and I am very happy with the procession. :patriot:
I said it back then and Ill say it again.
those numbers were just F-ing amazing for someone that nobody knew.

Do not discount the stupidity of the Maryland voter. If they are dem, and they dont like O'Malley, their vote will go for the unknown guy.

How funny would it be?:killingme

You know, Im going to vote for him again. Maybe he can do something about those unfair laws that dont allow NAMBLA to operate in the state.

:popcorn: The point is that the child support steals their pay and so a better paying job is just more money for the c/s to steal.

So it is not doing the person any real favor as it is just trying to make so the law can steal more.

:whistle: I know all about that, but it only gives a superficial account while the actual Court records so we could see more accurately what has transpired is completely restricted from public access.

The cowardly Court hides its dirty deeds from the public. And go down to the Circuit Court and ask our elected Court Clerk if you need some proof of that.

:howdy: No, it does not. The stolen money goes to the custodial which mis-uses the loot in every case.

:dye: It would be supporting a corrupt system and NOT supporting children.

That is just the raw reality. :patriot:

I really hope this is a joke, there is no way this guy is going to get very far running for governor. Sounds like a deadbeat that won't pay his child support and uses stupid excuses for justification. I am sure there are mothers/fathers out there that misuse child support but that is not for you to decide. This is the reason you have the option to take it back to Court and let the Judge decide. Either you take care of your kids, or you are going to have to face the consequences.

I really hope this is a joke, there is no way this guy is going to get very far running for governor. Sounds like a deadbeat that won't pay his child support and uses stupid excuses for justification. I am sure there are mothers/fathers out there that misuse child support but that is not for you to decide. This is the reason you have the option to take it back to Court and let the Judge decide. Either you take care of your kids, or you are going to have to face the consequences.
I don't think its a joke. well, in the way that a normal joke would be played out.
What I do think is that we have one seriously mental patient that has glorified hopes of winning an election so he can spend four years trying to starve children.

just sick.

*standing with mic*

So, J.P. Tell us just exactly what recommendations you'd make to reform and improve the child support system and its vast inequities.

:tap:

:shortbus: The best support for children is to let the 2 parents provide as needed and for the State to butt out.

It really is a very simple equation.

:bdaycake:

:shortbus: The best support for children is to let the 2 parents provide as needed and for the State to butt out.

It really is a very simple equation.

:bdaycake:

So, you think if the state "butts out" dad will pay. I've been to child support court, I know what some of these dads owe, I'm talking more than some people make in a year. But if the state leaves them alone, they'll pay. Okay, great idea, keep 'em comin'.

:shortbus: The best support for children is to let the 2 parents provide as needed and for the State to butt out.

It really is a very simple equation.

:bdaycake:

I agree, the "state" should butt out completely. No TANF, Independence cards, no welfare, no section 8, no assistance at all.

I agree, the "state" should butt out completely. No TANF, Independence cards, no welfare, no section 8, no assistance at all.

How will our love child survive?

How will our love child survive?

Quit biatching, I send you $20 a month. :burning:

How will our love child survive?

according to JP they will survive on the family unit, money be damned, who needs stinking money, food and clothes are free.

Quit biatching, I send you $20 a month. :burning:

Shim still has a small mouth and can sleep in a dresser drawer. But Shim will grow up and need school supplies. I heard that the theif store no longer sells kid clothes and toys. :bawl:

So, you think if the state "butts out" dad will pay. I've been to child support court, I know what some of these dads owe, I'm talking more than some people make in a year. But if the state leaves them alone, they'll pay. Okay, great idea, keep 'em comin'.
:popcorn: The State laws have created the mess you are talking about.

The parents owing more than people make in a year is the point that the law is crazy and the parents are dead broke and no one can pay the outrageous demands.

No one is helping the children by punishing those parents, and those are the honest parents that actually show up at those crooked Court hearings.

The State needs to butt-out because it is the State that has made a mess of things.

It is absurd to keep blaming the parents for this.

:drummer:

:popcorn: The State laws have created the mess you are talking about.

The parents owing more than people make in a year is the point that the law is crazy and the parents are dead broke and no one can pay the outrageous demands.
No one is helping the children by punishing those parents, and those are the honest parents that actually show up at those crooked Court hearings.

The State needs to butt-out because it is the State that has made a mess of things.

It is absurd to keep blaming the parents for this.

:drummer:

Hello, the reason they owe this much is because they've never paid, some of the amounts were set at 30-50 bucks a week, come on JPC, you can't call that a ridiculous amount.

Hello, the reason they owe this much is because they've never paid, some of the amounts were set at 30-50 bucks a week, come on JPC, you can't call that a ridiculous amount.
:whistle: I call that stealing.

And it does not make much difference if one steals $5 or a million dollars because stealing is still stealing.

And parents that are ordered to pay 30-50 bucks means they are dirt poor parents that are being robbed of their last dollars, and they have no way of surviving if they pay that child support thievery.

And that 30-50 bucks that destroy those super poor parents is not enough money to help the children at all.

Child support hurts the parents and it does not help the children.

The c/s is a complete fraud, and it is an ignorant and destructive set of laws.

:drummer:

JPC, do you not believe that parents should be financially responsible for their children at all?

JPC, do you not believe that parents should be financially responsible for their children at all?

:yikes:

Do you really want to re-live two years ago?

Welcome back, JPC!

JP, at some point you are going to have to tell us what it is that you are talking about with regard to how to 'fix' the system whereby separated parents support their children. You seem to keep saying that the way we address the issue now is bad, and that you would have us stop addressing it that way, but you haven't said how you would address the issue.

I understand, you say it is best for the family unit to take care of the children, or decide how to take care of the children. Well, of course that's the case - but that doesn't have anything to do with how the government manages the conflicting interests that arise when families choose that they don't want to do that - that they don't want to act as a unit with regard to taking care of the children. That is one of the most important things that government does, it provides means of resolving situations in which citizens have conflicting interests.

It almost seems like you want to make it illegal for people to separate. I'm guessing that's not the case, but your lack of even the most basic mechanistic plans for achieving your goals, leaves me unable to figure out what it is that you would like to do. Effective governance is more than laying out goals or stating how things should be - it is implementing policies to help get to those goals and to help make things the way they should be.

So, when parents do not want to be together anymore, and they can not agree among themselves how to financially support the children, what do you propose the government do? When those conditions aren't present, there isn't much need for the government to be involved. But when those conditions are present, then there has to be some sort of government involvement to resolve the conflict between the parents. Basically, what you have said is you don't want those conditions to be present - you don't want there to be a conflict between the parents. Well, that's fine and dandy, but the reality is that there sometimes are conflicts between the parents, your wishes to the contrary notwithstanding. Unless, of course, you are asserting that the government choosing to get involved and provide a child support mechanism is what causes all of the conflicts to begin with - that without that, there would be no incentive for parents to have a conflict, and thus they'd always be able to agree (or would just stay together). Good luck selling that notion.

So, again, when parents can't agree on how to financially support their children, what should government do? Nothing? Take the children from them? Fine them $20 a day until they agree on something? Lock them in a room until they agree? Take away their cookies and send them to bed without dinner?

Seriously, you've been saying you would fix this for a long time, if you could get in a position to do so. Surely by now you have some idea how you would go about doing that - other than that it would be different than what we do now.

Who knows, I might support your ideas - when you give me the slightest clue what those ideas actually are.

His idea is to let the non custodial parent decide what if anything to give to the custodial parent without interference from the courts.

I'm surprised, he is really getting a rather large following on other sites that he is posting this on.
I guess it just has to do with location.

His idea is to let the non custodial parent decide what if anything to give to the custodial parent without interference from the courts.

I'm surprised, he is really getting a rather large following on other sites that he is posting this on.
I guess it just has to do with location.

So, you think his plan is simply to foreclose custodial parents' rights to ask courts to order child support? That's it, no other plan? Interesting.

So then, people would have the right to ask the courts to resolve most financial disputes, but they wouldn't have that right if the dispute related to the support of children?

Is that what you are proposing JP? Or, are you just proposing that the failure to pay court ordered child support not be a criminal offense for which someone could be jailed?

Because, I have to tell you, if what bcp suggests is correct, you are going to need to do more than get yourself elected governor to meaningful effectuate your plan. You are going to have to get yourself elected President of the U.S., and get some friends elected to the U.S. Senate - because you are going to need to get control over who sits on the U.S. Supreme Court. What I'm saying is, even if you could get Maryland to pass a law that denies custodial parents the right to seek judicial resolution of a financial dispute, I think there is very little chance that such a law would hold up under federal challenges.

So, you think his plan is simply to foreclose custodial parents' rights to ask courts to order child support? That's it, no other plan? Interesting.

So then, people would have the right to ask the courts to resolve most financial disputes, but they wouldn't have that right if the dispute related to the support of children?

Is that what you are proposing JP? Or, are you just proposing that the failure to pay court ordered child support not be a criminal offense for which someone could be jailed?

Because, I have to tell you, if what bcp suggests is correct, you are going to need to do more than get yourself elected governor to meaningful effectuate your plan. You are going to have to get yourself elected President of the U.S., and get some friends elected to the U.S. Senate - because you are going to need to get control over who sits on the U.S. Supreme Court. What I'm saying is, even if you could get Maryland to pass a law that denies custodial parents the right to seek judicial resolution of a financial dispute, I think there is very little chance that such a law would hold up under federal challenges.
He feels that child support is not an issue that the state has any right being involved in. That parents will provide what they feel they should, no more, no less, and that's all there should be to it. That the custodial parent, if that's a woman, will only spend the money entirely on herself and not provide a single thing for the child at all. He's been quoted as saying children need no school supplies, whatever food the mother can provide only, clothing from charitable organizations is more than sufficient, etc., etc.

He, even in his feeble and mentally impaired condition, does not actually think he could ever be elected dog catcher, let alone governor. He does not seek to actually effect the changes of which he speaks, or anything else for that matter. His one and only motivation is the attention this gives him, so he won't feel so alone after abandoning his child and wife and having nothing to expect in his future except pain and loneliness.

:popcorn: The point is that the child support steals their pay and so a better paying job is just more money for the c/s to steal.

So it is not doing the person any real favor as it is just trying to make so the law can steal more.

:whistle: I know all about that, but it only gives a superficial account while the actual Court records so we could see more accurately what has transpired is completely restricted from public access.

The cowardly Court hides its dirty deeds from the public. And go down to the Circuit Court and ask our elected Court Clerk if you need some proof of that.

:howdy: No, it does not. The stolen money goes to the custodial which mis-uses the loot in every case.
:dye: It would be supporting a corrupt system and NOT supporting children.

That is just the raw reality. :patriot:

Child Support Enforcement requires documentation showing how the money was spent. Additionally, if you fire all of the CSE workers as you previously stated, that will drive the Unemployment rate even higher. How do you propose to deal with that increase?

JPC, do you not believe that parents should be financially responsible for their children at all?
:howdy: The parents have always provided for their own children since Adam and Eve, so I say we must go back to letting the parents do their own business of taking care of their own children and this is not a job for the State gov to control.

The State needs to butt-out of parents raising their own children.

And that does not mean butt-out of physical crimes or violent abuse of children.

The State's job is to promote marriage, and to protect the family units, and not to make divorce easy or to order parents to pay each other.

If the State leaves the parents alone then their children will be provided with far more than the children need, because that is what parents naturally do.

:drummer:

:howdy: The parents have always provided for their own children since Adam and Eve,
Did you provide for your child?

:yikes:

Do you really want to re-live two years ago?
:boxing: I promise to go easier on you this time, and I will not beat you down so much, and you do not have to be so ashamed of how much I pushed you around before.

Try to have a sense of humor this time, and I will try to be nice with you.


:nomoney:

Welcome back, JPC!

:howdy: Hi there BS Gal, and thank you for the welcome back. :flowers:



:drummer:

:nomoney:

That's the first believable thing you've said in this whole thread, you are nothing but a broke a$$ biatch! :blahblah::blahblah::blahblah::blahblah:

Did you provide for your child?

I have a feeling I know how he's going to answer this. Can't wait to see if I'm right.

JP, at some point you are going to have to tell us what it is that you are talking about with regard to how to 'fix' the system whereby separated parents support their children. You seem to keep saying that the way we address the issue now is bad, and that you would have us stop addressing it that way, but you haven't said how you would address the issue.
:howdy: Hi T, that makes sense and I see it like I am trying to stop a runaway train and my BIG task is to stop the steamrolling of child support which is a huge challenge and it is hard to explain to people that to just stop the harassing of the parents and the children will instantly improve too.

I understand, you say it is best for the family unit to take care of the children, or decide how to take care of the children. Well, of course that's the case - but that doesn't have anything to do with how the government manages the conflicting interests that arise when families choose that they don't want to do that - that they don't want to act as a unit with regard to taking care of the children. That is one of the most important things that government does, it provides means of resolving situations in which citizens have conflicting interests.
:whistle: That is an excellent point and that is the way it is viewed now under the present system, but that system is wrong.

When the parents are disputing and the parents do not want to cooperate even for the children, then it was very wrong for the State gov to butt in.

The parents simply must be left to work it out for them selves and any gov intervention is just destroying the family fabric of our society.

If we let them alone then the parents really will work it all out for them selves, and if we continue letting the gov interfere then we will destroy our own society if it is not already ruined.

That might appear to be a simple solution but it is not simple at all.

It almost seems like you want to make it illegal for people to separate. I'm guessing that's not the case, but your lack of even the most basic mechanistic plans for achieving your goals, leaves me unable to figure out what it is that you would like to do.
:popcorn:The two parents having a child means they are connected forever and then can not truly separate and it is a dysfunction to forcibly impose a separation.

What God has joined let no man put asunder.

But the present child support and custody laws do forcibly divide families and forcibly alienate children and the laws forcibly destroy the family units, and that needs to be stopped.

Effective governance is more than laying out goals or stating how things should be - it is implementing policies to help get to those goals and to help make things the way they should be.
:bigwhoop: That is fine when the State is building a road or constructing a building, but when the State is affronting common families then it requires a little more care and delicacies.

If we want to promote divorces and empower adultery then we got that down perfect, but if we want to promote marriage and empower families then we have got to turn this stuff around.

So, when parents do not want to be together anymore, and they can not agree among themselves how to financially support the children, what do you propose the government do? When those conditions aren't present, there isn't much need for the government to be involved. But when those conditions are present, then there has to be some sort of government involvement to resolve the conflict between the parents.
I want the gov to butt-out, and no - the gov does not have to get involved.

Basically, what you have said is you don't want those conditions to be present - you don't want there to be a conflict between the parents. Well, that's fine and dandy, but the reality is that there sometimes are conflicts between the parents, your wishes to the contrary notwithstanding.
:coffee: I do not deny the conflicts at all, and instead I escalate that claim as I say there are always conflicts going on and the conflicts never end and in the case of separation and divorce the conflicts could be better worked out if the people work it out them selves and the gov stays completely out of it all.

Our big-daddy gov has no business getting between a father and mother arguing over their children.

Unless, of course, you are asserting that the government choosing to get involved and provide a child support mechanism is what causes all of the conflicts to begin with - that without that, there would be no incentive for parents to have a conflict, and thus they'd always be able to agree (or would just stay together). Good luck selling that notion.
:howdy: I do not say the gov causes the conflicts but I do say that the gov escalates any conflict into a divorce and into broken families and into stealing child support and on and on.

So, again, when parents can't agree on how to financially support their children, what should government do? Nothing? Take the children from them? Fine them $20 a day until they agree on something? Lock them in a room until they agree? Take away their cookies and send them to bed without dinner?
:popcorn: It is none of the gov's business and the gov needs to do nothing.

Seriously, you've been saying you would fix this for a long time, if you could get in a position to do so. Surely by now you have some idea how you would go about doing that - other than that it would be different than what we do now.

Who knows, I might support your ideas - when you give me the slightest clue what those ideas actually are.
:howdy: Hopefully I have answered it some what for you above.



:drummer:

Child Support Enforcement requires documentation showing how the money was spent.
:bigwhoop: That is not correct.

I have heard that there are in some few circumstances the law requires an accounting of the money but that is very few as the vast majority of child support is spent with no accounting at all.

Additionally, if you fire all of the CSE workers as you previously stated, that will drive the Unemployment rate even higher. How do you propose to deal with that increase?
:popcorn: I do not believe I could pull it off, but I say many of the CSE workers need to be prosecuted for crimes against our society.

So putting them out of a job does not seem as an imposition to me.

President Obama is not prosecuting the criminal Bush administration so it is not an easy thing to seek justice in the USA.


:drummer:

Did you provide for your child?

:howdy: I left the child with the mother so everything was provided.



:drummer:

:howdy: I left the child with the mother so everything was provided.



:drummer:

and of course you gave the mother nothing, did the mother have to rely on other family or state assistance? Here is my question, how did you get away with not paying child support? I didn't think child support arrears went away, not matter how old the child got.

:howdy: I left the child with the mother so everything was provided.



:drummer:
Ill just take that as a no.
you did nothing.

In that mind of yours do you even realize that the very laws you think are unjust, were made necessary and implemented because of people like you?

and of course you gave the mother nothing, did the mother have to rely on other family or state assistance? Here is my question, how did you get away with not paying child support? I didn't think child support arrears went away, not matter how old the child got.
To his great joy, the mother (his ex-wife) died. then her new husband dropped all charges and waved the back payments.

I think that is how his story goes.

If for some reason a man really can not work at all, I can understand some leeway on the payments for support.
However, since he chose not to produce any income even though he could have, I have no respect or concern for him.

People, if you all turn your chair around 180 and talk to the wall you'll probably get more logical answers. This thread belongs in the joke section as much as I have to laugh throughout it.

but look how he is bringing people together here.

not to mention that as foolish as it is, he IS actually going to try and secure the job of governor, so it does belong here.

enjoy the laugh.

His idea is to let the non custodial parent decide what if anything to give to the custodial parent without interference from the courts.

I'm surprised, he is really getting a rather large following on other sites that he is posting this on.
I guess it just has to do with location.

And the number of readers... who do not want to pay child support...

And the number of readers... who do not want to pay child support...
I was joking about the support that he is getting over there.
People on the other forum dont even try to hide what they are thinking. They make me look like a saint.

and of course you gave the mother nothing, did the mother have to rely on other family or state assistance?
:howdy: It is my understanding that at the very beginning she got public assistance but that did not last long as she had plenty of other resources.

And then later at the end when she was dying of cancer she had to get medical assistance and less than a year later she died of the cancer.

So both of those times brought the child support collectors after me but providing for the child had nothing to do with what was really going on because my son had all of his needs filled to over flowing.

Here is my question, how did you get away with not paying child support?
:coffee: I did not really get away with it at all.

I did pay it at some times unless I could not afford it, and I did get put into jail twice by the c/s thieves, and lots of other consequences too.

If parents really got away with not paying the thieves then there would not be much of a reason for me to reform it now.

I didn't think child support arrears went away, not matter how old the child got.
:whistle: The arrears can be written off in most case, except for the poorest of the poor parents where the State gov steals the child support and the State keeps the loot and it never goes to any children, and my own case was some 27,000 in arrears and the case was closed with the money unpaid and unforgiven.

When I become Governor then I will improve all of this.


:drummer:

So, you think his plan is simply to foreclose custodial parents' rights to ask courts to order child support? That's it, no other plan? Interesting.
:whistle: It was correct in that one time, but you must understand that nobody else ever speaks for me - and especially that booming idiot "bcp" does not speak for me.

What other posters say is different than what I say.

So then, people would have the right to ask the courts to resolve most financial disputes, but they wouldn't have that right if the dispute related to the support of children?
:coffee: Other financial disputes like in business or accidents are a far different thing than child support.

I would like to see some real Tort reform if I could over-see the process and veto the issues to get it done right, but otherwise Tort reform will only make the thieves more effective in their stealing.

Is that what you are proposing JP? Or, are you just proposing that the failure to pay court ordered child support not be a criminal offense for which someone could be jailed?
:popcorn: The child support as it is now is a modern version of a "Debtor's Prison" and this was a big reason that the USA founders fought against the injustices of the British empire.

So I certainly resent the Debtor's Prison being mis-used now against parents.

And I do know that the Maryland Annotated Code specifically claims it is not a "Debtor's Prison system", but when I get into the Governor's Office then that lie will be thrown out along with the thieving c/s.

Because, I have to tell you, if what bcp suggests is correct, you are going to need to do more than get yourself elected governor to meaningful effectuate your plan. You are going to have to get yourself elected President of the U.S., and get some friends elected to the U.S. Senate - because you are going to need to get control over who sits on the U.S. Supreme Court. What I'm saying is, even if you could get Maryland to pass a law that denies custodial parents the right to seek judicial resolution of a financial dispute, I think there is very little chance that such a law would hold up under federal challenges.
:whistle: It is okay if I have to continue the fight on to the maximum.

And I truly do want to influence or even direct the reform of the child support and custody laws all the way across the USA and not just for Maryland.

But I am only one person and I do have to start some where and I am here so I start here.


:drummer:

and especially that booming idiot "bcp" does not speak for me.


I suspect that between the two of us, you would certainly lose the booming? did you mean Blooming? idiot award should the general population have the chance to vote.

I also suspect that you would have a very hard time convincing anyone to turn you loose with their child for any length of time.. for that matter, I personally have a feeling that you might not be the best individual to have around any children.

Now, go get a real job and get out of my pocket you vile leach.

:howdy: It is my understanding that at the very beginning she got public assistance but that did not last long as she had plenty of other resources.

And then later at the end when she was dying of cancer she had to get medical assistance and less than a year later she died of the cancer.

So both of those times brought the child support collectors after me but providing for the child had nothing to do with what was really going on because my son had all of his needs filled to over flowing.

:coffee: I did not really get away with it at all.

I did pay it at some times unless I could not afford it, and I did get put into jail twice by the c/s thieves, and lots of other consequences too.

If parents really got away with not paying the thieves then there would not be much of a reason for me to reform it now.

:whistle: The arrears can be written off in most case, except for the poorest of the poor parents where the State gov steals the child support and the State keeps the loot and it never goes to any children, and my own case was some 27,000 in arrears and the case was closed with the money unpaid and unforgiven.

When I become Governor then I will improve all of this.


:drummer:

Sorry you will lose, I can't imagine someone as irresponsible as becoming anything more than a trash picker on the side of the road and even they usually have supervision from the many standing by the van with the gun.

I suspect that between the two of us, you would certainly lose the booming? did you mean Blooming? idiot award should the general population have the chance to vote.
:buddies: Well thank you for that you silly confused idiot.

So I will concede that you would win both the booming and the blooming awards.

:killingme :howdy: :patriot: :killingme

:buddies: Well thank you for that you silly confused idiot.

So I will concede that you would win both the booming and the blooming awards.

:killingme :howdy: :patriot: :killingme
again with your ignorance and inability to understand things numbnuts.
to be considered the idiot, would be the loss.
much like If you were to actually win by some intervention by Satan, it would equate to a loss to the state.

now, run on back to your gubmint funded slum and slap yourself you lazy non working POS.
Pisses me off to see someone milking the system like you do.

:howdy:
So both of those times brought the child support collectors after me but providing for the child had nothing to do with what was really going on


If parents really got away with not paying the thieves then there would not be much of a reason for me to reform it now.

:whistle: The arrears can be written off in most case, except for the poorest of the poor parents where the State gov steals the child support and the State keeps the loot and it never goes to any children,
:drummer:

And where would the money come from to pay those doctors who cared for her while she was receiving medical assistance?? The majority of that money comes from the people who work and pay taxes, are they not allowed to recoup some of it???


If the mom is on public assistance the government is giving her money.. money that she should have been getting from you.. in the form of child support.

why do you feel that "the people who pay taxes" and who will be your possible voters should have to pay to support her?

Do you think that money to pay the doctors and pay peoples rents and groceries just falls outta the sky?

Don't get me wrong.. I have no issue with your ex wife getting help when she was ill... BUT SOMEONE HAS TO REPLACE THAT MONEY!

the rest of us have chipped in our share- so you needed to chip in your share as well!!!!!

And where would the money come from to pay those doctors who cared for her while she was receiving medical assistance?? The majority of that money comes from the people who work and pay taxes, are they not allowed to recoup some of it???


If the mom is on public assistance the government is giving her money.. money that she should have been getting from you.. in the form of child support.

why do you feel that "the people who pay taxes" and who will be your possible voters should have to pay to support her?

Do you think that money to pay the doctors and pay peoples rents and groceries just falls outta the sky?

Awesome questions, lets see how he answers, he may not, these are tricky questions for him

I just want to know why he wont work

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

:howdy:
So both of those times brought the child support collectors after me but providing for the child had nothing to do with what was really going on


If parents really got away with not paying the thieves then there would not be much of a reason for me to reform it now.

:whistle: The arrears can be written off in most case, except for the poorest of the poor parents where the State gov steals the child support and the State keeps the loot and it never goes to any children,
:drummer:

And where would the money come from to pay those doctors who cared for her while she was receiving medical assistance?? The majority of that money comes from the people who work and pay taxes, are they not allowed to recoup some of it???


If the mom is on public assistance the government is giving her money.. money that she should have been getting from you.. in the form of child support.

why do you feel that "the people who pay taxes" and who will be your possible voters should have to pay to support her?

Do you think that money to pay the doctors and pay peoples rents and groceries just falls outta the sky?

Don't get me wrong.. I have no issue with your ex wife getting help when she was ill... BUT SOMEONE HAS TO REPLACE THAT MONEY!

the rest of us have chipped in our share- so you needed to chip in your share as well!!!!!

I hate to take Jimmy's side on anything, but you are way off base here.

Child support is not for paying her doctors, her rent, or her groceries. It is for the child's expenses ONLY.

Alimoney could cover those things if awarded, but there's no reason to believe it was.

He did not pay the expenses to raise his own child, and that surely caused hardship and stress for his ex as she was dying. But that does not make him liable for any expenses incurred because she got sick.

I just want to know why he wont work

ummm cuz his paycheck comes in the mail????????

[SIZE=1]


I hate to take Jimmy's side on anything, but you are way off base here.

Child support is not for paying her doctors, her rent, or her groceries. It is for the child's expenses ONLY.



I did not mean directly thru child support-

I was refering to the fact that when someone receives Temporary cash assistance or medical assistance they are required to open a child support case at that time. The purpose of this is two-fold.

if no child support is paid by the absent parent during the time the custodial parent is receiving public assistance........

and the child support arrears are building up ....

those arrears are then OWED to the state! A requirement of receiving cash assistance is to assign the child support arrears over to the state for the time that the parent receives assistance..

thus child support is the program that is bringing money in to help defray the monies spent by the state for those programs



My intent was to reply to this comment by JPC
The arrears can be written off in most case, except for the poorest of the poor parents where the State gov steals the child support and the State keeps the loot and it never goes to any children,


that if the mom was on public assistance the state didn't steal the child support money- as she was getting a check and/ or rent assistance, food stamps- The state gave her money they didn't steal it .

and when/if he ever paid- the arrears assigned to the state have to be paid off

the custodial parent can forgive arrears owed to them

I did not mean directly thru child support-

I was refering to the fact that when someone receives Temporary cash assistance or medical assistance they are required to open a child support case at that time. The purpose of this is two-fold.

if no child support is paid by the absent parent during the time the custodial parent is receiving public assistance........

and the child support arrears are building up ....

those arrears are then OWED to the state! A requirement of receiving cash assistance is to assign the child support arrears over to the state for the time that the parent receives assistance..

thus child support is the program that is bringing money in to help defray the monies spent by the state for those programs
no you have it all wrong.
if the state pays the childs care during this period, then takes the money back from the worthless criminal deadbeat donor, the state is stealing the money.
the childs needs were already met and there is no reason to require assistance from the worthless sperm donor at all. its just not fair

no you have it all wrong.
if the state pays the childs care during this period, then takes the money back from the worthless criminal deadbeat donor, the state is stealing the money.
the childs needs were already met and there is no reason to require assistance from the worthless sperm donor at all. its just not fair

Well if I paid income tax and social security oh and medicare tax last year and everyones needs were met then the thieves at the IRS should not take any this year....


LOL if he really wanted votes he would add SMECO to his platform... the greedy electric thieves

Thinking on this I might be able to retire, still pay my bills, put my daughter through college and travel nonstop for a few maybe 20 years.

I just have to collect disability.

lets see, I broke my back in 92, the surgery left a touch of arthritis in my spine.

then, In 95 I cut off two fingers in a construction accident. they put them back on but one of them lost the tendon and wont straighten out anymore.

Then, in 04 I had a heart attack and had to get a stent put in.

06 was a ruptured disk that left me without nerves to my foot.

08 I had pneumonia that damaged my lungs and I have lost about 25% of my lung capacity because of it.

What a damn fool I am for going into work every day just to take care of my family.

If JPC can get benefits because his hands are bent from strokin, I just know all my bills can be paid without me working.

but then on the other hand, I expect that my injuries over the years could be why I have such a disgust when I hear about some POS milking the system like he his.

I want to thank you all now for paying my way.

Hey Jp how did you injure your cartleges?

"And a third injury is in his lower back-bone as the cartleges were crushed in another event. This injury occassionally flares up but it seems to be mostly healed."

to be considered the idiot, would be the loss.

Pisses me off ...
:howdy: So we really are brothers, and you are one of my brethren.




:buddies:

:howdy: So we really are brothers, and you are one of my brethren.




:buddies:

Library still open? I had no idea.

And where would the money come from to pay those doctors who cared for her while she was receiving medical assistance?? The majority of that money comes from the people who work and pay taxes, are they not allowed to recoup some of it???
:bigwhoop: She was an American citizen of Maryland and she had her own right since she must have qualified for the public assistance and that is how our Social Services are designed to work.

So the gov is not really allowed to "recoup" it from me or from anyone else.

She did not get medical assistance based on having a child nor anything to do with child support.

If the mom is on public assistance the government is giving her money.. money that she should have been getting from you.. in the form of child support.
She qualifies for public assistance on her own merit as an American citizen, and the child support is not to be Mommy support.

As it is now the poorest of poor custodials that do get on public assistance do not receive the child support because the State keeps the loot.

why do you feel that "the people who pay taxes" and who will be your possible voters should have to pay to support her?
It is the US gov jobs under the US Constitution to promote the general "welfare" of the population.

It really is the same for all taxes for all gov programs in that it is to help and support and protect the US citizens as that is the purpose of taxes.

Do you think that money to pay the doctors and pay peoples rents and groceries just falls outta the sky?
It might not fall out of the sky, but such things are not to be paid by stealing money and calling it support for children.

Don't get me wrong.. I have no issue with your ex wife getting help when she was ill... BUT SOMEONE HAS TO REPLACE THAT MONEY!
No, the taxes or assistance does not get replaced or repaid as that is absurd.

Ordering people to repay gov assistance would just force more people into bankruptcy and into poverty.

the rest of us have chipped in our share- so you needed to chip in your share as well!!!!!
Well I have always paid taxes and I still pay some taxes today.


:drummer:

I did not mean directly thru child support-

I was refering to the fact that when someone receives Temporary cash assistance or medical assistance they are required to open a child support case at that time. The purpose of this is two-fold.

if no child support is paid by the absent parent during the time the custodial parent is receiving public assistance........

and the child support arrears are building up ....

those arrears are then OWED to the state! A requirement of receiving cash assistance is to assign the child support arrears over to the state for the time that the parent receives assistance..

thus child support is the program that is bringing money in to help defray the monies spent by the state for those programs
:dye: That is a point that I have repeated many times, that even the poorest of poor children have all of their needs filled completely and there is no justification for giving them extra.

The entire concept of child support is based in a fraud and it is a pack of lies, and the surest proof of that is in this reality that the State steals the child support cash away from the poorest of the poor children.

My intent was to reply to this comment by JPC
The arrears can be written off in most case, except for the poorest of the poor parents where the State gov steals the child support and the State keeps the loot and it never goes to any children,

that if the mom was on public assistance the state didn't steal the child support money- as she was getting a check and/ or rent assistance, food stamps- The state gave her money they didn't steal it .
The money given in public assistance is not stolen money because the custodial has an American right to receive the public assistance.

But going out and taking the money away from the separated parent and calling that as "child support" is both stealing and lying in simple and exact terms.

Child support is to support children and not to repay the State for welfare assistance, but the crooked system as it is now does this anyway.


:drummer:

Hey Jp how did you injure your cartleges?

"And a third injury is in his lower back-bone as the cartleges were crushed in another event. This injury occassionally flares up but it seems to be mostly healed."
:whistle: I try not to elaborate on that one, but since you ask;

I was injured in the St. Mary's County Detention Center (1995 or 96?) when the guards beat me up and one of the 5 guards purposely came full weight down over my shoulders to purposely crush my backbone cartilages and it worked for him very well.

I learned later that the Correctional Officers train in ways of attacking and damaging the inmates in ways that can not be easily verified or seen, like my backbone being crushed left no scares and no bruise and they refused me any real medical attention afterward and I was just one of many inmates to be assaulted and crippled by the guards.

Most inmates do not get assaulted by the Correction Officers but over time it amounts to quite a few that do, and when they beat up one inmate then the terror tactic is seen and received by the hundred other inmates that know about it.

And I feel that I must confess that I do know of other inmates that have been brutalized far worse than I was by the guards.

And of course it was said to be my own fault as it is when the guards beat up any inmate that it is always recorded as the inmates' own fault every time.




:drummer:

So you have a record too. Eh... I was gonna type up some scathing shyte but you know what? You are just not worth my time or even a moments worth of my thoughts. A good thread to unsubscribe from.

Different policies apply in terms of how child
support collections are handled and if an annual collections fee applies, among other
things. For example, because Maryland presently does not ‘pass through’ any child
support in TANF cases, support payments made by noncustodial parents in current-
TANF cases are retained by the state to offset the cost of TANF assistance provided to
the family. If the amount of support collected is large enough to make the family
ineligible for TANF, of course, the family receives the support and their welfare case is
closed. In contrast, support collections that are received by the agency on behalf of
never-TANF cases are paid directly to the family


People & Payments: A Baseline Profile of Maryland’s Child Support Caseload (http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:73_A4txTubkJ:www.familywelfare.umaryland.edu/reports/ca.pdf+tca+and+assignment+of+child+support+arrears+maryland&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

In 1950, when only a small minority of children were in female-headed families, the Federal Government took its first steps into the child support arena. Congress amended the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) law by requiring State welfare agencies to notify law enforcement officials when benefits were being furnished to a child who had been abandoned by one of her parents. Presumably, local officials would then undertake to locate nonresident parents and make them pay child support. From 1950 to 1975, the Federal Government confined its child support efforts to these welfare children. With this exception, most Americans thought that child support establishment and collection was a domestic relations issue that should be dealt with at the State level by the courts.

The 1975 legislation (Public Law 93-647) added a new part D to title IV of the Social Security Act. This statute, as amended, authorizes Federal matching funds to be used for enforcing support obligations by locating nonresident parents, establishing paternity, establishing child support awards, and collecting child support payments. Since 1981, child support agencies have also been permitted to collect spousal support on behalf of custodial parents, and in 1984 they were required to petition for medical support as part of most child support orders.

Basic responsibility for administering the program is left to States, but the Federal Government plays a major role in: dictating the major design features of State programs; funding, monitoring and evaluating State programs; providing technical assistance; and giving assistance to States in locating absent parents and obtaining support payments


In 1996, Public Law 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, abolished AFDC and related programs and replaced them with a block grant program of TANF. Under the new law, each State must operate a CSE Program meeting Federal requirements in order to be eligible for TANF funds. In addition to abolishing AFDC, Public Law 104-193 made about 50 changes to the CSE Program, many of them major. These changes include requiring States to increase the percentage of fathers identified, establishing an integrated, automated network linking all States to information about the location and assets of parents, requiring States to implement more enforcement techniques, and revising the rules governing the distribution of past due (arrearage) child support payments to former recipients of public assistance.


The Social Security Act requires every State operating a TANF Program to conduct a Child Support Enforcement Program. Federal law requires applicants for, and recipients of, TANF to assign their support rights to the State in order to receive benefits. In addition, each applicant or recipient must cooperate with the State to establish the paternity of a child born outside marriage and to obtain child support payments.


if the relative with whom a child is living still refuses to cooperate, then the State must reduce the family's TANF benefit by at least 25 percent and may remove the family from the TANF Program. (Federal law also stipulates that no TANF funds may be used for a family that includes a person who has not assigned child support rights to the State.)



States are required to use several enforcement tools. They must use the IRS tax refund offset procedure for welfare and nonwelfare families, and they must also determine periodically whether any individuals receiving unemployment compensation owe child support. The State Employment Security Agency (part of the Federal-State Unemployment Insurance System), is required to withhold unemployment benefits, and to pay the child support agency any outstanding child support obligations established by an agreement with the individual or through legal processes.

Other enforcement techniques States must use include:

1. Imposing liens against real and personal property for amounts of overdue support;
2. Withholding State tax refunds payable to a parent who is delinquent in support payments;
3. Reporting the amount of overdue support to a consumer credit bureau upon request;
4. Requiring individuals who have demonstrated a pattern of delinquent payments to post a bond or give some other guarantee to secure payment of overdue support;
5. Establishing expedited processes within the State judicial system or under administrative processes for obtaining and enforcing child support orders and determining paternity.

These expedited procedures include giving States authority to secure assets to satisfy payment of past-due support by seizing or attaching unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, judgments, settlements, lotteries, asset held in financial institutions, and public and private retirement funds;
6. Withholding, suspending, or restricting the use of driver's licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and recreational and sporting licenses of noncustodial parents who owe past-due support;
7. Denying passports to persons owing more than $5,000 in past-due support;
8. Requiring unemployed noncustodial parents who owe child support to a child receiving TANF benefits to participate in appropriate work activities;
9. Performing quarterly data matches with financial institutions; and
10. Voiding of fraudulent transfers of assets to avoid payment of child support.


Foster care agencies are required to take steps, where appropriate, to secure an assignment to the State of any rights to support on behalf of a child receiving foster care maintenance payments under title IV-E of the Social Security Act.

State child support agencies are also required to petition to include medical support as part of any child support order whenever health care coverage is available to the noncustodial parent at a reasonable cost. And, if a family loses TANF eligibility as the result of increased collection of support payments, the State must continue to provide Medicaid benefits for 4 calendar months beginning with the month of ineligibility. In addition, States must provide services to families covered by Medicaid who are referred to the State IV-D agency from the State Medicaid agency.



States also have the option of charging a late payment fee equal to between 3 and 6 percent of the amount of overdue support. Late payment fees may be charged to noncustodial parents and are to be collected only after the full amount of the support has been paid to the child.


Finally, each State must comply with any other requirements and standards that the Secretary determines to be necessary to the establishment of an effective child support program.

The entire concept of child support is based in a fraud and it is a pack of lies, and the surest proof of that is in this reality that the State steals the child support cash away from the poorest of the poor children.

The money given in public assistance is not stolen money because the custodial has an American right to receive the public assistance.



What you and those like you fail to understand is that welfare in its own is the fraud in this case.
The word "welfare" in the constitution did not mean taking money from one person and giving it to another. I think it was Roosevle that created the welfare system as it is today.
Based on that, and considering your theory on child support being theft, I would expect you to see that public assistance is theft.
Its something I dont want to support in 90% of the cases (yours being one of them) but I have no option. Therefore, public assistance, is theft, and by extention you are stealing money from me.

You might really want to explore a bit of constitutional history before you make the determination that the word "welfare" had an original meaning of free money to the poor.

Oh, and as far as that goes, child support in your opinion is just as constitutional as public assistance, so again, based on your own words, you should have given the support freely because it was your constitutional obligation.

JP, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my posts, though you still didn't definitively answer one of my inquiries. Regarding the child support system, which one of these three things would you want to do if you were governor? If none of them is a fair description, then of course, feel free to provide one.

(1) Change Maryland law saw that no one could be jailed for failure to pay court ordered child support.

(2) Do (1) and change Maryland law by removing all of it that relates to child support (and enforcement), so that there was no state run mechanism to help custodial parents get awarded child support and collect it, and no statutory guidelines for determining child support in individual cases.

(3) Do (2) and make a special provision in Maryland law that specifically grants non-custodial parents immunity from civil liability for matters relating to the expenses associated with raising/supporting their children.

The money given in public assistance is not stolen money because the custodial has an American right to receive the public assistance.

Okay, I don't think I can let this pass without comment. They have an American right to receive public assistance? If by that you simply mean that there are specific laws that say they are to receive it, then I guess that's correct. But, if you mean 'right' in any broader sense, then I think that statement is preposterous - even treacherous. It reveals the mindset which has come to pervade modern society, which misconstrues the notion of political rights, and which will be increasingly problematic for society and the prosperity thereof.

Here's the problem, there's a trend in society whereby people have a habit of mixing apples and oranges, and talking about them both under the umbrella of 'rights', and in ways that infer (or assume) comparability. Traditionally, or at least Constitutionally, most rights refer to things that the government is not allowed to do to you (and to some extent, things that it can't allow others to do to you), not things that the government has to give you. You have the 'right' to not have certain things done to you, not the 'right' to have certain things done for you. Individual rights, as relates to governments, are prohibitions placed on those governments, not obligations placed on them (except, as I said, to the extent that they need to 'prohibit' people from doing things to other people).

You don't have a political right to have people give you things, you have a political right to have them not take things away from you. One might argue that voting is a 'right' to have something given to you - and that's a reasonable argument. However, I see the state as something that arises from the very political franchise that comes to be embodied in, and represented by, the vote - so in its essence, it isn't something the government gives you, but something that we have, the collective of which creates and is the government.

Different policies apply in terms of how child
support collections are handled and if an annual collections fee applies, among other
things. For example, because Maryland presently does not ‘pass through’ any child
support in TANF cases, support payments made by noncustodial parents in current-
TANF cases are retained by the state to offset the cost of TANF assistance provided to
the family. If the amount of support collected is large enough to make the family
ineligible for TANF, of course, the family receives the support and their welfare case is
closed. In contrast, support collections that are received by the agency on behalf of
never-TANF cases are paid directly to the family


People & Payments: A Baseline Profile of Maryland’s Child Support Caseload (http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:73_A4txTubkJ:www.familywelfare.umaryland.edu/reports/ca.pdf+tca+and+assignment+of+child+support+arrears+maryland&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

In 1950, when only a small minority of children were in female-headed families, the Federal Government took its first steps into the child support arena. Congress amended the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) law by requiring State welfare agencies to notify law enforcement officials when benefits were being furnished to a child who had been abandoned by one of her parents. Presumably, local officials would then undertake to locate nonresident parents and make them pay child support. From 1950 to 1975, the Federal Government confined its child support efforts to these welfare children. With this exception, most Americans thought that child support establishment and collection was a domestic relations issue that should be dealt with at the State level by the courts.

The 1975 legislation (Public Law 93-647) added a new part D to title IV of the Social Security Act. This statute, as amended, authorizes Federal matching funds to be used for enforcing support obligations by locating nonresident parents, establishing paternity, establishing child support awards, and collecting child support payments. Since 1981, child support agencies have also been permitted to collect spousal support on behalf of custodial parents, and in 1984 they were required to petition for medical support as part of most child support orders.

Basic responsibility for administering the program is left to States, but the Federal Government plays a major role in: dictating the major design features of State programs; funding, monitoring and evaluating State programs; providing technical assistance; and giving assistance to States in locating absent parents and obtaining support payments


In 1996, Public Law 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, abolished AFDC and related programs and replaced them with a block grant program of TANF. Under the new law, each State must operate a CSE Program meeting Federal requirements in order to be eligible for TANF funds. In addition to abolishing AFDC, Public Law 104-193 made about 50 changes to the CSE Program, many of them major. These changes include requiring States to increase the percentage of fathers identified, establishing an integrated, automated network linking all States to information about the location and assets of parents, requiring States to implement more enforcement techniques, and revising the rules governing the distribution of past due (arrearage) child support payments to former recipients of public assistance.


The Social Security Act requires every State operating a TANF Program to conduct a Child Support Enforcement Program. Federal law requires applicants for, and recipients of, TANF to assign their support rights to the State in order to receive benefits. In addition, each applicant or recipient must cooperate with the State to establish the paternity of a child born outside marriage and to obtain child support payments.


if the relative with whom a child is living still refuses to cooperate, then the State must reduce the family's TANF benefit by at least 25 percent and may remove the family from the TANF Program. (Federal law also stipulates that no TANF funds may be used for a family that includes a person who has not assigned child support rights to the State.)



States are required to use several enforcement tools. They must use the IRS tax refund offset procedure for welfare and nonwelfare families, and they must also determine periodically whether any individuals receiving unemployment compensation owe child support. The State Employment Security Agency (part of the Federal-State Unemployment Insurance System), is required to withhold unemployment benefits, and to pay the child support agency any outstanding child support obligations established by an agreement with the individual or through legal processes.

Other enforcement techniques States must use include:

1. Imposing liens against real and personal property for amounts of overdue support;
2. Withholding State tax refunds payable to a parent who is delinquent in support payments;
3. Reporting the amount of overdue support to a consumer credit bureau upon request;
4. Requiring individuals who have demonstrated a pattern of delinquent payments to post a bond or give some other guarantee to secure payment of overdue support;
5. Establishing expedited processes within the State judicial system or under administrative processes for obtaining and enforcing child support orders and determining paternity.

These expedited procedures include giving States authority to secure assets to satisfy payment of past-due support by seizing or attaching unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, judgments, settlements, lotteries, asset held in financial institutions, and public and private retirement funds;
6. Withholding, suspending, or restricting the use of driver's licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and recreational and sporting licenses of noncustodial parents who owe past-due support;
7. Denying passports to persons owing more than $5,000 in past-due support;
8. Requiring unemployed noncustodial parents who owe child support to a child receiving TANF benefits to participate in appropriate work activities;
9. Performing quarterly data matches with financial institutions; and
10. Voiding of fraudulent transfers of assets to avoid payment of child support.


Foster care agencies are required to take steps, where appropriate, to secure an assignment to the State of any rights to support on behalf of a child receiving foster care maintenance payments under title IV-E of the Social Security Act.

State child support agencies are also required to petition to include medical support as part of any child support order whenever health care coverage is available to the noncustodial parent at a reasonable cost. And, if a family loses TANF eligibility as the result of increased collection of support payments, the State must continue to provide Medicaid benefits for 4 calendar months beginning with the month of ineligibility. In addition, States must provide services to families covered by Medicaid who are referred to the State IV-D agency from the State Medicaid agency.



States also have the option of charging a late payment fee equal to between 3 and 6 percent of the amount of overdue support. Late payment fees may be charged to noncustodial parents and are to be collected only after the full amount of the support has been paid to the child.


Finally, each State must comply with any other requirements and standards that the Secretary determines to be necessary to the establishment of an effective child support program.
:popcorn: I like to point out that all of that above states NOTHING nothing at all to do with children in need or needy children, as the entire law is totally based on parenting police and attacking parents with absolutely no regard at all for the children, and no regard for any real need of any child.

And foremost in that parenting police set of rules is that the poorest of the poor families on welfare do have the child support taken by the State and put into the State treasury because there is the distinct position that all the children already have all of their needs filled completely.

These rules are not for supporting children but only for policing parents.

So it is all a lie and a fraud.


:drummer:

What you and those like you fail to understand is that welfare in its own is the fraud in this case.
The word "welfare" in the constitution did not mean taking money from one person and giving it to another. I think it was Roosevle that created the welfare system as it is today.
Based on that, and considering your theory on child support being theft, I would expect you to see that public assistance is theft.
Its something I dont want to support in 90% of the cases (yours being one of them) but I have no option. Therefore, public assistance, is theft, and by extention you are stealing money from me.

You might really want to explore a bit of constitutional history before you make the determination that the word "welfare" had an original meaning of free money to the poor.

Oh, and as far as that goes, child support in your opinion is just as constitutional as public assistance, so again, based on your own words, you should have given the support freely because it was your constitutional obligation.
:popcorn: You are just playing games again bcp.

There is no comparison between the richest Country in the world using a small (relatively small) amount of the overall taxes to give public assistance to the poorest members of our society, then compare that to individual parents being pillaged and slandered to pay child support when the children already have everything the child needs to over flowing.

You might want to win your argument but there is no comparison in that.



:drummer:

JP, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my posts, though you still didn't definitively answer one of my inquiries. Regarding the child support system, which one of these three things would you want to do if you were governor? If none of them is a fair description, then of course, feel free to provide one.

(1) Change Maryland law [so] that no one could be jailed for failure to pay court ordered child support.

(2) Do (1) and change Maryland law by removing all of it that relates to child support (and enforcement), so that there was no state run mechanism to help custodial parents get awarded child support and collect it, and no statutory guidelines for determining child support in individual cases.

(3) Do (2) and make a special provision in Maryland law that specifically grants non-custodial parents immunity from civil liability for matters relating to the expenses associated with raising/supporting their children.
:whistle: I would want all three (3) of those, but it does seem that your #3 would not be necessary even though it does reflect the point of reform.

Okay, I don't think I can let this pass without comment. They have an American right to receive public assistance? If by that you simply mean that there are specific laws that say they are to receive it, then I guess that's correct. But, if you mean 'right' in any broader sense, then I think that statement is preposterous - even treacherous. It reveals the mindset which has come to pervade modern society, which misconstrues the notion of political rights, and which will be increasingly problematic for society and the prosperity thereof.
I do see it as a human right and a God given right and thus a birth right, and the US Constitution does reflect that in saying that the Federal gov is to provide for the "welfare" of the population.

It was not put into the Bill of Rights but I say it was understood at that time and ever after.

Here's the problem, there's a trend in society whereby people have a habit of mixing apples and oranges, and talking about them both under the umbrella of 'rights', and in ways that infer (or assume) comparability. Traditionally, or at least Constitutionally, most rights refer to things that the government is not allowed to do to you (and to some extent, things that it can't allow others to do to you), not things that the government has to give you. You have the 'right' to not have certain things done to you, not the 'right' to have certain things done for you. Individual rights, as relates to governments, are prohibitions placed on those governments, not obligations placed on them (except, as I said, to the extent that they need to 'prohibit' people from doing things to other people).
I say that is a wrong perspective which makes the interpretation incorrect.

It is no so much that people / citizens have a right to public assistance, because the "right" belongs to taxpayers that we have the right to help and assist our fellow citizens through the gov and with the tax dollars.

I see it like the Civil War in that the slaves did not have the right nor the power to defend themselves, so the right and the power belonged to the honest and moral citizens to do the right for the slaves.

So it is with poor people in the USA can not claim their own rights but the honest and moral citizens and taxpayers claim the right to provide for our fellow citizens in need.

Some people that do not receive public assistance are the ones trying to take it away, while other people that also do not receive public assistance demands that it is continued.

So the poor and the needy do not fight their own fight.

The same happens in child support in that the children are not in the discussions.

You don't have a political right to have people give you things, you have a political right to have them not take things away from you. One might argue that voting is a 'right' to have something given to you - and that's a reasonable argument. However, I see the state as something that arises from the very political franchise that comes to be embodied in, and represented by, the vote - so in its essence, it isn't something the government gives you, but something that we have, the collective of which creates and is the government.
:bigwhoop: The one right that counters that is in the 2nd Amendment in that we do have the right to fight back and to use violence against the gov when it does become tyrannical.

So you are correct that the gov can stop all welfare and the gov can stop all public assistance, but then the people have the option of doing as was done in the French revolution (1789) and cut off the King's head.


:drummer:

:popcorn: You are just playing games again bcp.

There is no comparison between the richest Country in the world using a small (relatively small) amount of the overall taxes to give public assistance to the poorest members of our society, then compare that to individual parents being pillaged and slandered to pay child support when the children already have everything the child needs to over flowing.

You might want to win your argument but there is no comparison in that.



:drummer:
The only thing overflowing in all of this is the waste coming from the toilet you call a mouth. (yes, yours)

Now if it was me, and I was looking to save the state some money, I would be more aggressive with the deadbeat bums, I would not lay off WORKERS, I would start by laying off welfare recipients. You first.
It makes no sense to put a greater burden on the state with child support, and at the same time laying off the productive when there are so many unproductive to take the hit first.

not one worker would be laid off until the last of the welfare mooches were gone.

It's quite clear that JPC has no reading comprehension, or he would have noted that child support laws are regulated by:

FEDERAL LAW

NOT MARYLAND LAW!!!!!!

It's quite clear that JPC has no reading comprehension, or he would have noted that child support laws are regulated by:

FEDERAL LAW

NOT MARYLAND LAW!!!!!!

He should hire on with the Obama administration as the new Child Support Czar.

:popcorn: You are just playing games again bcp.

There is no comparison between the richest Country in the world using a small (relatively small) amount of the overall taxes to give public assistance to the poorest members of our society, then compare that to individual parents being pillaged and slandered to pay child support when the children already have everything the child needs to over flowing.

You might want to win your argument but there is no comparison in that.



:drummer:

And how on earth do you know the child has everything he/she needs to overflowing? Again, JP, you are pathetic and I am counting down to the day you LOSE!

It's quite clear that JPC has no reading comprehension, or he would have noted that child support laws are regulated by:

FEDERAL LAW

NOT MARYLAND LAW!!!!!!So what you're saying is even if he were to be elected :snicker:, there's not a damn thing he could do. :killingme

So what you're saying is even if he were to be elected :killingme:snicker:killingme:, there's not a damn thing he could do. :killingme

Good one, I got my laugh for the night.

It's quite clear that JPC has no reading comprehension, or he would have noted that child support laws are regulated by:

FEDERAL LAW

NOT MARYLAND LAW!!!!!!
:whistle: I do know about that and I do not like it either.

But Maryland like any State can still reject the Federal mandates and I would do that.


:drummer:

And how on earth do you know the child has everything he/she needs to overflowing? Again, JP, you are pathetic and I am counting down to the day you LOSE!
:whistle: We can KNOW that because we know that every State in the USA has welfare and Social Services provided to every American citizen and so that means that every child has full access to every thing the child needs, and there are other places like Churches and Charity groups that give to families far more so and that means every child has every thing they each need to over flowing.

There is ONLY only one (1) way that any child in the entire USA goes without their needs filled and that is when the custodial is neglecting or abusing the child.

It has absolutely no regard nor baring on whether they receive child support or not.



:drummer:

:whistle: We can KNOW that because we know that every State in the USA has welfare and Social Services provided to every American citizen and so that means that every child has full access to every thing the child needs, and there are other places like Churches and Charity groups that give to families far more so and that means every child has every thing they each need to over flowing.

There is ONLY only one (1) way that any child in the entire USA goes without their needs filled and that is when the custodial is neglecting or abusing the child.

It has absolutely no regard nor baring on whether they receive child support or not.



:drummer:

That is exactly the answer I would expect from a low life, non working bum. I'm sure the child is really proud knowing that they get everything from charities and state assistance and can tell their friends this versus saying "yes, both my parents provide for me." What a way to give a child some pride. You are truly worthless JP. So you are wrong, the child does not have everything he/she needs.

Not only do I hope you lose, which I am sure you will, but I honestly think you did not spend enough time in jail.